Presidency Clarifies Tinubu’s Involvement in US FOIA Case
The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil records disclosure dispute and not a criminal case.
The clarification followed recent reports and commentaries surrounding the case, with the Presidency stressing that neither the court nor the proceedings have found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
In a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency provided a background to the case, noting that it dates back to FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several United States government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
According to the statement, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23 1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023 after some agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence.
The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the defendants invoked the “Glomar defence,” a standard legal position under US law that allows government agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain investigations or records where disclosure could expose law enforcement personnel, sources or investigative techniques.
It said the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The statement added that aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration remained under consideration.
According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions provided under US law.
The plaintiff challenged the redactions and sought the release of the documents without them.
The FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing various FOIA exemptions covering grand jury proceedings, attorney client and attorney work product privileges, law enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said President Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
It disclosed that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any 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 to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability, noting that the dispute centres on access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.
It further stated that the matter remains under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties.
The Presidency also disputed recent public commentary by Karl von Batten, saying he and his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, are not parties to the case.
It urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan commentary, reiterating that the case does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.
“The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful,” the statement said.
The statement was signed by Onanuga on September 3, 2026.
