The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case 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 president.
In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the case, filed in 2023 by Aaron Greenspan, concerns requests for records from several US government agencies relating to Tinubu.
According to the statement, the US District Court for the District of Columbia allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor after the case was filed.
The Presidency said the CIA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service and Executive Office for US Attorneys successfully invoked the “Glomar defence”, which allows government agencies in certain circumstances to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records.
The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of those agencies, while aspects of the case involving the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained under consideration.
The FBI and DEA have since released 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions contained in US law. The plaintiff has challenged the redactions, while the agencies have maintained that some information cannot legally be disclosed.
The exemptions cited include protections covering grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, law-enforcement information, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency added that Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights under the relevant FOIA privacy exemption.
It said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file further opposition and replies, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability, insisting that the remaining dispute is whether the redactions applied by the US agencies are lawful.
It urged Nigerian media and the public to distinguish the ongoing court proceedings from political commentary, noting that the matter will ultimately be determined by the US District Court based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
