The Presidency on Thursday dismissed reports portraying an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation in the United States as a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, insisting that the proceeding is strictly a civil dispute over access to government records.
It said the remaining issue before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is whether redactions made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to records already released are lawful under American law.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, clarified in a statement against the backdrop of renewed public debate over the litigation instituted by Aaron Greenspan.
‘For clarity, 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,’ the Presidency said.
It recalled that 23 years ago, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, warrants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
Giving a chronology of the current litigation, the Presidency said Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies in 2022 seeking records relating to Tinubu.
It alleged that Greenspan is known to work with Nigerian opposition figures, including David Hundeyin and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.
According to the statement, after some of the US agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced 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.
The Presidency explained that during the proceedings, some of the defendant agencies invoked what is known as the ‘Glomar defence,’ which allows an agency in certain circumstances to neither confirm nor deny the existence of particular records.
‘It simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation. It protects government personnel and the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes,’ the statement said.
It said the court consequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing them from the proceedings.
The claims involving the FBI and DEA, however, remained for further consideration.
According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA subsequently complied with the court’s orders by producing 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan then challenged the decision to redact portions of the documents, prompting the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, to defend the redactions.
The Presidency said the agencies cited several legal grounds for withholding portions of the records, including protections covering grand jury proceedings and information relating to pen registers or trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3.
It said the agencies also relied on privileges covering attorney work product and attorney-client communications, including instances in which FBI and DEA agents sought or received legal advice from Justice Department attorneys.
Other grounds cited included protection of law-enforcement materials and information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Presidency said the agencies further argued that releasing some information could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise investigative techniques used by law-enforcement authorities.
It added that Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted privacy rights guaranteed under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
The statement said Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, it added, have until September 18 to respond to any processes subsequently filed by the plaintiff.
‘The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,’ the Presidency stressed.
It said the outcome of the litigation rested exclusively with Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court, who would determine the issues on the basis of the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
According to the Presidency, the outcome would not be determined by ‘the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.’
It also faulted recent public comments by Karl von Batten, saying neither he nor his client was a party to the litigation.
‘Recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings. Neither is a party to the case.
‘The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It 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 United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,’ the statement said.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between verified developments in the US court proceedings and partisan interpretations of the litigation.