The Presidency has dismissed reports portraying the ongoing Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, litigation involving President Bola Tinubu before a United States court as a criminal case, saying the dispute is strictly over the disclosure and redaction of government records.
It said the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had not found Tinubu guilty of any criminal offence, stressing that the court proceedings concern the legality of withholding portions of records requested under the US FOIA.
In a statement issued on Thursday, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the case originated from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
According to Onanuga, after some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US 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 during the litigation, the defendants invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under US law which allows government agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of particular records or investigations.
It said the defence was successfully relied upon by the Central Intelligence Agency, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, leading the court to grant summary judgment in their favour and remove them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA.
According to the statement, the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
The plaintiff subsequently challenged the redactions and sought disclosure of the withheld portions.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the application, citing several statutory exemptions protecting information from public disclosure.
These include records relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court orders protected under FOIA Exemption 3; attorney-client and attorney-work-product materials under Exemption 5; law-enforcement records; and information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Other exemptions, it said, cover information that could expose confidential sources or reveal law-enforcement techniques under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
Tinubu, the statement added, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), on the advice of his lawyers.
The Presidency further 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.
It stressed that the disclosure or withholding of records under the FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” the Presidency said.
It also urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish the actual court proceedings from political commentary, noting that the case remains under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
The statement added that recent claims by Karl Von Batten portraying himself and his client as central to the proceedings were inaccurate, stressing that neither was a party to the case.
The Presidency maintained that the outstanding issue before the US court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA comply with applicable US law.
It urged the media to report the proceedings based on court filings and applicable law rather than partisan interpretations.
