The Presidency has dismissed what it described as speculative reports surrounding an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Presidency, in a statement, stressed that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under US FOIA and does not constitute a criminal case, charge or trial against Tinubu.
It also said the court had not found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
The Presidency recalled that on February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos informed the then Inspector General of Police, 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.
According to the statement, in 2022, Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu. Following the withholding of some records by the agencies, 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 US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence,” a legal position under which an agency may neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records or investigations.
It said the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the US Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The statement said issues involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained for further consideration.
It added that, in compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA released 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
The plaintiff subsequently challenged the redactions, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the demand for the unredacted documents.
The agencies, according to the Presidency, cited several FOIA exemptions, including protections covering grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, law-enforcement information, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The Presidency said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to personal privacy in law-enforcement records.
It said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency emphasised that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability, noting that the central issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful.
It further stated that the case is under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court, who will determine the matter based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency also rejected recent public commentary by Karl von Batten, saying neither he nor his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
It urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.
