Follow Us On Google
The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act case involving records relating to President Bola Tinubu before a United States court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the President.
Naija News reports that the clarification was contained in a statement issued by the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, on Thursday.
Onanuga said recent reports and commentaries about the case had created the impression that Tinubu was facing criminal proceedings in the United States.
He stressed that “it is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.”
According to him, the case is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and concerns requests for access to records held by various US government agencies.
Onanuga said the case dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to several United States government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
He described Greenspan as someone known to work with Nigerian opposition figures, including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar.
According to the Presidency, after some of the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
Onanuga also drew attention to an earlier FBI records check conducted in 2003.
He said 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 had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
The Presidency said that during the proceedings, the defendants invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a position that allows US law enforcement agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of particular records or investigations.
Onanuga explained that the defence “simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation.”
He added that the defence was intended to protect government personnel as well as the techniques and sources used by law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute crimes.
According to the Presidency, the United States District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.
The agencies were consequently removed from the proceedings, leaving claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further consideration.
Onanuga said the FBI and DEA later complied with the court’s orders by producing 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
The plaintiff, Greenspan, subsequently challenged the decisions of the FBI and DEA to redact portions of the documents.
The agencies, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request for the release of the documents without redactions.
The Presidency listed several grounds cited by the FBI and DEA for retaining the redactions.
It said some of the documents are protected from public disclosure by law, including transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings, while the Pen Register Act protects information relating to certain court orders authorising or approving the installation and use of pen register or trap and trace devices.
These were said to fall under FOIA Exemption 3.
The agencies also argued that some of the documents were protected by attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, particularly documents containing instances where FBI and DEA agents sought or received legal advice from US Department of Justice attorneys.
The Presidency said such documents fall under FOIA Exemption 5.
It added that other documents were prepared for law enforcement purposes, while some contained information that could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed.
The latter grounds were cited under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
The agencies further argued that some documents could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise law enforcement techniques used in investigating crimes, which the Presidency said fell under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
Onanuga said Tinubu had, on the advice of his lawyers, also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
He explained that the remaining dispute was essentially whether the redactions applied by the FBI and DEA were lawful under US law.
“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 litigation remains under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to Onanuga, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the intervenor.
He said the FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency also rejected recent public commentary by Karl von Batten, saying he and his client, Atiku Abubakar, were not parties to the case.
Onanuga said the media should not portray von Batten or Atiku as central to the proceedings.
“Neither is a party to the case,” he said.
He added that the outcome would be determined by Judge Howell on the basis of the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
Onanuga said the decision would be based “not on the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.”
The Presidency also accused von Batten of inaccurately portraying himself and his client as central to the proceedings.
The statement urged the Nigerian media and members of the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the case.
Onanuga reiterated that the litigation was a civil records-disclosure dispute and did not amount to a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against Tinubu.
“The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful,” he said.
He added that the United States District Court would determine the issue based on the filings and applicable US law rather than political commentary.
“The Presidency therefore urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation,” Onanuga said.
Join the conversation
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.