The Presidency has dismissed reports suggesting that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is facing a criminal case in the United States, insisting that the ongoing litigation before a US federal court in Washington, D.C., is strictly a civil dispute over access to government records.
In a statement on Thursday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia does not amount to a criminal charge, trial or finding of wrongdoing against Tinubu.
According to the Presidency, the litigation, filed under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), centres on whether certain records held by American law-enforcement agencies should be released publicly and whether portions of documents already released were lawfully redacted.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said, stressing that the court’s task is to determine whether the agencies complied with applicable US law governing access to government records.
The clarification comes amid renewed public attention to Civil Action No. 23-1816, filed in 2023 by Aaron Greenspan after several US government agencies declined to release, or confirm or deny the existence of, certain records relating to Tinubu.
The Presidency said Greenspan had submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies in 2022 before commencing the litigation when the agencies withheld some records or declined to confirm or deny their existence.
President Tinubu was subsequently permitted by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The case initially involved the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The Presidency said the US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar” defence, a legal position that permits an agency, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether it possesses records relating to an investigation.
On that basis, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, State Department, Treasury Department and IRS, removing them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case involve the FBI and DEA.
According to the Presidency, the two agencies subsequently produced 399 pages of records in compliance with the court’s orders, although substantial portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
The plaintiff has challenged the redactions and is seeking access to the unredacted material.
The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the request, arguing that some of the withheld information is protected by law.
The exemptions cited include protections covering grand jury proceedings and information relating to certain court-authorised pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. Other exemptions cover attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has separately asserted his rights under FOIA’s privacy provisions.
It stressed that none of the exemptions being litigated should be interpreted as a judicial determination that the President committed a crime.
“Neither the release nor withholding of records under FOIA establishes criminal liability,” the Presidency said.
The administration also sought to draw a distinction between the court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the case, particularly claims by individuals linked to Nigerian opposition politics.
Onanuga said recent commentary by Karl von Batten had inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central figures in the proceedings, insisting that neither is a party to the case.
The Presidency also accused Greenspan of working with Nigerian opposition figures, including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and journalist David Hundeyin, in connection with the FOIA requests.
It further pointed to a 2003 communication 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, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
The Presidency invoked the 2003 communication as part of its broader argument that the current FOIA litigation should not be portrayed as proof of criminal wrongdoing by the President.
The legal battle is now focused principally on whether the FBI and DEA were entitled under US law to redact portions of the 399 pages of documents they released.
The court has set September 11, 2026, as the deadline for the plaintiff to file opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu.
The FBI, DEA and the President, as intervenor, have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency said the outcome will ultimately rest with Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” Onanuga said.
The administration consequently urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political interpretations of the case.
At the heart of the dispute, the Presidency maintained, is not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu but a legal question over the extent to which US law permits government agencies to withhold or redact information contained in their records.
