The Presidency has moved to clarify reports surrounding an ongoing case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, insisting that the matter involving records connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a civil Freedom of Information Act dispute and not a criminal prosecution.
In a statement signed by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said recent public discussion had created the impression that President Tinubu was facing a criminal case in the United States.
According to the statement, the litigation concerns requests for the release of records held by United States government agencies and the extent to which those agencies are legally permitted to redact or withhold parts of the documents.
The Presidency stressed that the court has not found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal offense.
The statement traced the dispute to Freedom of Information Act requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
The Presidency alleged that Greenspan had links with Nigerian opposition figures, but that characterisation is part of the Presidency’s political response and does not itself determine the legal issues before the US court.
After some agencies either withheld records or declined to confirm whether certain records existed, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
President Tinubu was later permitted by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also referred to a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos, which it said informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records or warrants for Tinubu at the time.
During the proceedings, some of the US agencies invoked what is known as the Glomar response, under which an agency may, in certain circumstances, refuse to confirm or deny the existence of particular records.
According to the Presidency, the US District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service.
Those agencies were removed from the remaining dispute, leaving aspects of the case involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration DEA, for further consideration.
The FBI and DEA later released 399 pages of records, with portions of the documents redacted.
The dispute now centres largely on whether those redactions are lawful under the United States Freedom of Information Act.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, relied on several statutory exemptions to justify withholding portions of the records.
Among the reasons cited were legal protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain court-authorised investigative tools.
Other withheld material was said to involve attorney-client communications, legal advice sought by federal agents, law-enforcement records, and information whose disclosure could affect personal privacy.
The agencies also argued that releasing some material could expose confidential sources or reveal investigative methods used by law enforcement authorities.
President Tinubu, acting on legal advice, has similarly asserted privacy protections under FOIA Exemption 7(C), according to the statement.
The Presidency said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to respond to processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu’s legal team have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any further filings from the plaintiff.
A major point in the statement is the distinction between access to government records and criminal liability.
The Presidency argued that whether a document is released, redacted, or withheld under FOIA does not itself prove that a person committed an offense.
Freedom of Information litigation generally concerns whether government agencies have properly responded to requests for records and whether exemptions cited to withhold information are justified.
It does not, by itself, amount to a criminal charge, conviction or judicial declaration of wrongdoing.
The Presidency therefore criticised attempts to portray the ongoing case as a criminal prosecution against Tinubu.
It also challenged commentary attributed to Karl von Batten, saying neither he nor his client is a party to the case.
The statement further accused political opponents of attempting to influence public perception of the proceedings. Those political allegations remain separate from the legal questions before the US court.
The matter is significant because it involves Nigeria’s sitting President and has attracted political attention at home.
For Nigerians following the controversy, the key issue is understanding precisely what the court is being asked to decide.
At this stage, based on the Presidency’s account of the proceedings, the remaining legal dispute concerns whether the FBI and DEA were entitled to redact parts of the records they released.
That question is expected to be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case also highlights the importance of separating legal facts from political interpretation.
Government officials have an interest in defending the President, while political opponents may scrutinise the same documents from a different perspective. Neither side’s political claims should be treated as a substitute for what the court actually rules.
For the media, careful language is particularly important. The existence of records, an FOIA request or litigation over disclosure is not the same as a criminal indictment or conviction.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to rely on verified court proceedings rather than partisan claims while the litigation continues.
Ultimately, the US court will determine whether the contested redactions comply with American law. Until then, the case remains a civil dispute over access to government records rather than a criminal proceeding against President Tinubu.
