Presidency breaks silence on Tinubu’s US FOIA case, denies criminal trial

Presidency breaks silence on Tinubu’s US FOIA case, denies criminal trial

The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil dispute over access to government records and does not constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian President.

The clarification was issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, amid renewed controversy over records sought from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning Tinubu.

According to the Presidency, the case before the US District Court for the District of Columbia does not amount to a criminal charge or trial, and no court has found Tinubu guilty of any criminal offence.

“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” the statement said.

The Presidency said the matter dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

It said some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed, prompting Greenspan to file Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

READ ALSO:

• Ex-Benue councillor remanded for allegedly pushing woman into fire
• 20-year-old arrested over alleged gang-rape of 19-year-old woman in Ogun
• Ebonyi Man Stages Own Kidnap, Demands N25m Ransom From Family — Police

The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to intervene in the proceedings, giving him an opportunity to assert his interests concerning the disclosure of records.

The Presidency also referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, concerning an FBI records search relating to Tinubu.

According to the Presidency, the letter stated that the FBI search found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.

The issue has resurfaced amid renewed public debate over historical US records concerning Tinubu and events dating back to the early 1990s.

The Presidency further explained that some US law enforcement agencies initially relied on what is known as the “Glomar defence” in responding to the FOIA requests.

A Glomar response allows a government agency, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist where acknowledging their existence could itself reveal information protected under law.

According to the Presidency, the US District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of several agencies, including the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the remaining dispute.

It said certain aspects involving the FBI and DEA remained under consideration.

The Presidency said the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records pursuant to the court’s directions, although portions of the documents were redacted.

READ ALSO:

• Federal Workers Demand N300,000 Minimum Wage as Cost of Living Bites Harder
• IPMAN Plans Petrol Price Review as Dangote Refinery Raises Depot Cost
• FBI Arrests Podcaster Over Alleged Threats to Kill President Trump

The plaintiff later challenged the agencies’ decisions to redact portions of the records and sought access to the unredacted material.

The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, relying on several exemptions contained in the US FOIA.

The exemptions cited include protections for information relating to grand jury proceedings, certain surveillance-related information, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

The Presidency said Tinubu also relied on FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

It stressed that the release or withholding of government records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the Presidency said.

It added that the current proceedings do not amount to a criminal prosecution, criminal trial or judicial finding against Tinubu.

Rather, the remaining dispute centres on whether the FBI and DEA lawfully redacted portions of the records produced in response to the FOIA requests.

The Presidency said the case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the outstanding issues based on the court filings, evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties.

“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court. She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments,” the statement said.

The Presidency also rejected recent comments by Karl Von Batten, arguing that he and his client were not parties to the FOIA proceedings.

It accused Von Batten of inaccurately portraying himself and his client as central figures in the case.

“Recent public commentary by Mr. Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings. Neither is a party to the case,” the Presidency said.

According to the Presidency, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and responses to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu as an intervenor.

It added that the FBI, DEA and Tinubu would have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.

The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the case.

It maintained that the court, rather than political actors, would determine whether the disputed redactions complied with US law.

The clarification, however, does not determine what information may ultimately be contained in the portions of the FBI and DEA records that remain redacted. It also does not constitute a judicial finding about whether any historical investigation involving Tinubu existed.

Instead, the Presidency’s position is that the current US court proceedings are civil FOIA litigation over access to government records, rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

The court is expected to determine whether the FBI and DEA were legally entitled to withhold or redact the disputed portions of the records under applicable US law.

Presidency breaks silence on Tinubu’s US FOIA case, denies criminal trial