TINUBU FOIA CASE: PRESIDENCY SAYS NO CRIMINAL CHARGE, COURT TO RULE ON REDACTED RECORDS Presidency clarifies

 

Washington suit, says dispute centres on access to US government records

By Okwo romeon 

ABUJA — The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil dispute over access to government records and not a criminal case against the Nigerian President.

In a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the court had not found Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with the matter.

The clarification followed recent reports and public commentary surrounding Civil Action No. 23-1816, instituted in 2023 following FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies for records relating to President Tinubu.

According to the Presidency, the agencies either withheld some of the requested materials or declined to confirm or deny the existence of certain records, prompting the litigation.

The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

The Presidency said several US agencies, including the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, relied on the so-called “Glomar” response, a recognised position under US law which permits agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records concerning investigations.

The court, according to the statement, subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of those agencies and removed them from the proceedings, while issues involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained under consideration.

The FBI and DEA later produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US FOIA law.

The plaintiff challenged the redactions, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request for the documents to be released without the redactions.

The agencies cited several statutory exemptions, including protections relating to grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

The Presidency said Tinubu had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to the protection of personal privacy in law-enforcement records.

It stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability, saying the central issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful under US law.

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.

The statement also addressed claims and public commentary surrounding the case, stressing that the matter remains under the jurisdiction of the US District Court and will be determined by the presiding judge on the basis of the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties.

The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and political commentary, maintaining that the FOIA litigation should not be presented as a criminal trial or conviction involving the President.

The statement also referenced a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, which, according to the Presidency, stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Lagos State governor.

The Presidency said the historical correspondence was relevant background to the current controversy but maintained that the ongoing US litigation itself concerns the disclosure and redaction of government records.

It urged the media to report the proceedings based on the actual court filings and applicable law rather than speculation over their possible outcome.