The Presidency has dismissed speculation surrounding an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, insisting that the matter is strictly a civil dispute over access to government records and does not constitute a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In a statement issued on September 3, 2026, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, said the court had neither charged nor found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act,” the Presidency said.
“It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.”
The Presidency traced the background of the matter to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
According to the statement, Greenspan subsequently filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023 after some agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence.
The Presidency said President Tinubu was later allowed by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
It also recalled that the case came 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
During the proceedings, the defendants invoked what the Presidency described as the “Glomar defence,” under which law enforcement agencies may neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain investigations.
The statement explained that the defence was intended to protect government personnel, confidential sources and law enforcement techniques.
Based on the invocation of the defence, the court 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 case, however, continued in respect of aspects involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by U.S. law.
It said the plaintiff challenged the redactions and sought the release of the documents without portions being withheld.
The FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing several statutory exemptions, including protections relating to grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, personal privacy, confidential sources and law enforcement techniques.
The Presidency said President Tinubu had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C) on the advice of his lawyers.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the statement said.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.”
The Presidency said the plaintiff had until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the intervenor.
It added that the FBI, DEA and the intervenor would have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes subsequently filed by the plaintiff.
Onanuga stressed that the outcome of the case remained entirely within the jurisdiction of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court,” the statement 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.”
The Presidency also criticised recent public commentary by Karl von Batten, saying he and his client were not parties to the proceedings.
“Recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings,” the statement said.
“Neither is a party to the case.”
Reiterating its position, the Presidency maintained that the litigation should not be interpreted as a criminal prosecution or judicial indictment of President Tinubu.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA,” it said.
“It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu.”
The Presidency said the remaining issue before the court was whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA were lawful under applicable U.S. laws.
It therefore urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to avoid speculation and rely on verified information from the court proceedings.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the statement added.
“The Presidency therefore urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.”
