RismadarVoice Reporters
September 3, 2026
The Presidency has clarified that an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil dispute over access to government records and does not amount to a criminal case against President Bola Tinubu.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.
The Presidency said the case, filed in 2023, arose from requests by Aaron Greenspan for records relating to Mr Tinubu from several United States government agencies.
It said the agencies either withheld some of the requested records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, prompting Mr Greenspan to institute Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the Presidency, Mr Tinubu was later permitted by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The statement comes amid renewed public discussion of the case and attempts to link it to allegations of criminal wrongdoing against the Nigerian president.
The Presidency said such interpretations were misleading, stressing that the litigation concerns the disclosure of government records under the US FOIA.
It also referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Mr Tinubu, who was then the governor of Lagos State.
The Presidency said some of the US government agencies involved in the case invoked what is known as the “Glomar response”, a legal position that allows an agency to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records where doing so could reveal protected information.
It said the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to the statement.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA subsequently released 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.
Mr Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the documents, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request for full disclosure.
The agencies cited several statutory exemptions, including protections covering grand jury proceedings, certain court orders relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, attorney-client communications and attorney work product.
They also cited exemptions relating to personal privacy, confidential sources and law enforcement techniques.
The Presidency said Mr Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also invoked his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy interests in certain law-enforcement records.
According to the statement, Mr Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the president as intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and Mr Tinubu will then have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under the FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
It said the court’s task was to determine whether the agencies had lawfully applied the exemptions relied upon to redact portions of the records.
The statement also rejected recent public claims by Karl von Batten concerning the case, saying neither Mr Von Batten nor former Vice President Atiku Abubakar was a party to the proceedings.
The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between the contents of the court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the case.
It said the outcome would be determined by the US District Court on the basis of the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
