Tinubu’s U.S. FOIA case has no criminal charge or conviction – Presidency

By Amofokhai Williams

The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.

In a statement on Thursday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said recent reports about the case had created misleading impressions about its nature and proceedings.

Onanuga stressed that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had not found Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, describing the matter as a dispute over the disclosure and redaction of government records under US FOIA law.

“The matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” Onanuga said.

He said the case dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

According to the statement, 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 Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

Onanuga explained that several US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows agencies to decline to confirm or deny whether particular records exist when doing so could reveal protected intelligence or law-enforcement information.

He said the court consequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.

The remaining issues, he said, concern records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“In compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law,” Onanuga said.

He explained that Greenspan subsequently challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the documents.

Onanuga said the US Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the FBI and DEA, has opposed the demand for the unredacted records, citing several statutory exemptions.

The special adviser said the exemptions cover material relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court orders, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement purposes, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

He added that Tinubu had, on the advice of his lawyers, also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to the protection of personal privacy in law-enforcement records.

The Presidency said the next stage of the litigation would be determined through court filings, with Greenspan required to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes by September 11, 2026.

He added that the FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, will have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.

Onanuga also sought to draw a distinction between the existence of government records and proof of criminal conduct.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” he said. “The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.”

He further rejected recent commentary suggesting that opposition figures or their representatives could determine the outcome of the case.

“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court,” Onanuga said.

“She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.”

Onanuga also disputed claims by Karl von Batten about his role in the proceedings, saying neither Von Batten nor his client is a party to the case.

The presidential aide urged journalists and members of the public to rely on the actual court proceedings rather than political interpretations of the litigation.

“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” he said.

He added that the central question now before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA comply with US law.

“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” Onanuga said.

The Presidency, therefore, urged the media to distinguish between verified developments in the court proceedings and partisan speculation surrounding the case.