The Presidency has moved to clarify reports surrounding an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving records connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court in Washington, D.C.
In a statement issued on September 3, 2026, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the case is a civil dispute concerning access to government records and should not be interpreted as a criminal proceeding against President Tinubu.
According to the Presidency, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has not convicted or found Tinubu guilty of any criminal offence in connection with the matter.
The statement also referred to an earlier development in 2003, when the American Consulate in Lagos reportedly informed the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, in a February 4, 2003 letter that an FBI records search had found no criminal arrest records, outstanding warrants or wants involving Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
The Presidency said the present litigation originated from Freedom of Information requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies for records relating to President Tinubu.
After some agencies declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed or withheld portions of requested materials, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
President Tinubu was subsequently allowed by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency explained that some of the government agencies involved relied on what is known as the “Glomar” response. Under US law, this position allows an agency, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular investigative records exist, especially where doing so could disclose sensitive law-enforcement information.
Following the agencies’ reliance on this defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), US Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Those agencies were consequently removed from the case, while claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained before the court.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA subsequently released 399 pages of documents in compliance with the court’s orders. However, portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in the US Freedom of Information Act.
Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold certain portions of the records and sought access to unredacted versions.
The FBI and DEA, acting through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, arguing that the redactions were permitted under applicable FOIA provisions.
The agencies cited several exemptions, including protections covering grand jury materials and certain information relating to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices.
Other redactions, according to the Presidency, relate to attorney-client communications and attorney work-product privileges, as well as materials prepared for law-enforcement purposes.
The agencies also argued that some information could result in an unjustified invasion of individuals’ privacy if publicly disclosed.
In addition, certain portions were withheld because their release could identify confidential sources or expose investigative methods used by US law-enforcement agencies.
The Presidency said President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his legal representatives, has also invoked protections available under FOIA, particularly the exemption relating to personal privacy in law-enforcement records.
The statement stressed that the dispute over whether particular documents should be released or redacted does not, on its own, establish criminal liability against anyone.
It said the central legal question before the court is whether the agencies acted within the limits of US law when they withheld or redacted portions of the records.
According to the Presidency, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to submit opposition and reply documents, while the FBI, DEA and President Tinubu, as an intervenor, have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency further urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political interpretations surrounding the case.
It maintained that the matter is under the authority of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the dispute based on the evidence, applicable law and submissions of the parties.
The Presidency also rejected what it described as recent attempts by Karl von Batten to portray himself and his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, as central figures in the litigation.
According to the statement, neither Atiku Abubakar nor von Batten is a party to the FOIA proceedings.
The Presidency concluded by reiterating that the Washington case is a civil records-access dispute rather than a criminal charge or trial involving President Tinubu.
ALSO READ: Rivers Police Dismiss Four Officers Over Fatal Shooting of UNIPORT Graduate
It called on journalists and members of the public to rely on verified court developments and legal filings rather than partisan commentary when reporting on the case.
