The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian President.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday, September 3, 2026, by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, in response to what the Presidency described as speculative reports surrounding the case.
According to the statement, the case is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and concerns requests for access to government records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
The Presidency stressed that neither the court nor the proceedings had established any criminal wrongdoing by President Tinubu.
It recalled that as far back as February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos had informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
The statement said the current litigation originated in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
Following the agencies’ refusal to release some records or confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency explained that some of the U.S. government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence,” a legal position under which an agency may decline to confirm or deny the existence of particular records where doing so could reveal protected information.
It said the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), effectively removing those agencies from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the litigation involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
According to the statement, the FBI and DEA, in compliance with the court’s orders, produced 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in U.S. law.
The plaintiff subsequently challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the documents.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the U.S. Department of Justice, opposed the demand for unredacted disclosure, citing several statutory exemptions.
Among the reasons given were that some documents are protected by law, including records relating to grand jury proceedings; some contain information covered by attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges; some were prepared for law-enforcement purposes; and others contain information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agencies also argued that certain records could reveal confidential sources or law-enforcement investigative techniques.
The statement added that President Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which concerns protection of personal privacy in law-enforcement records.
The Presidency disclosed that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor, while the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
It maintained that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA,” the statement said, stressing that it does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.
The Presidency also criticised recent public commentary by Karl von Batten, arguing that neither he nor his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
It urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary.
The Presidency further emphasised that the outcome of the matter rests with the U.S. District Court and Judge Beryl A. Howell, who will determine the legality of the disputed redactions based on the evidence, applicable U.S. law and arguments presented by the parties.
