The Presidency has explained why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is challenging the release of unredacted records held by United States law enforcement agencies, insisting that the matter is a civil dispute over access to government documents and not a criminal case against the Nigerian president.
In a statement issued amid renewed public interest in the case, the Presidency said the ongoing litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia centres on lawful exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
It stressed that neither the court nor any US government agency has found Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with the matter.
According to the Presidency, the case dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
It said some agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny whether particular documents existed, prompting Greenspan to file Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court later allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, which stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, outstanding wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
Explaining the current legal dispute, the Presidency said US agencies had relied on the “Glomar defence,” a legal position that permits government agencies, under certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records.
It said the provision is intended to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and investigative methods.
The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the US Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the case.
The remaining issues concern records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA had already released 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, although portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions provided under US law.
Greenspan has challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold the redacted portions and is seeking access to the unredacted records.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the demand on several legal grounds.
It listed the grounds to include:
- Some records are protected from public disclosure by law, including grand jury materials and certain information relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3.
- Some documents are covered by attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges under FOIA Exemption 5.
- Certain records were compiled for law-enforcement purposes and are protected by applicable FOIA exemptions.
- Some documents contain information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
- Other records could reveal confidential sources or law-enforcement techniques and are therefore protected under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his legal team, had also invoked his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.
It maintained that the President’s opposition to the release of the documents should not be construed as an admission of criminal wrongdoing.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said, adding that the central question before the court is whether the agencies’ redactions comply with US law.
The Presidency further disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to submissions made by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18 to respond.
The case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the matter based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency also dismissed recent comments by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten concerning the case, stating that neither Von Batten nor his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the litigation.
It accused Von Batten of inaccurately presenting himself and his client as central figures in the proceedings.
The Presidency reiterated that the case is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA and does not amount to a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.
It urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.
