ABUJA — The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation 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 Nigerian President.

The clarification was contained in a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, amid growing public commentary surrounding the proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Rivers Assembly Passes ₦1.8 Trillion 2026 Budget

Onanuga said reports about the case had created the impression that Tinubu was facing criminal proceedings in the US, stressing that the court had neither charged nor found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

“It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” Onanuga said.

According to the Presidency, the matter began in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

The court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

Onanuga also referenced a 2003 FBI records check, saying the US Consulate in Lagos informed then Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, that a check of FBI records found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.

The Presidency explained that during the FOIA proceedings, some US law enforcement agencies invoked the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows an agency, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny whether particular records or investigations exist.

According to Onanuga, the defence is designed to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing those agencies from the remaining dispute.

The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained parties to the records dispute and subsequently produced 399 pages of documents, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US FOIA law.

Greenspan challenged the redactions and sought access to the withheld portions, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request.

The agencies cited several statutory exemptions for withholding portions of the records, including protections covering grand jury materials, certain court-authorised surveillance information, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

The Presidency said the remaining issue before the court is therefore whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful under US law.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the statement said.

The litigation remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Onanuga said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond.

The Presidency also dismissed recent commentary by US lobbyist Karl Von Batten, arguing that neither Von Batten nor his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the FOIA case.

“Neither is a party to the case,” Onanuga said.

He maintained that the eventual ruling would be determined by Judge Howell based on the evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties, rather than political statements.

Onanuga urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the case, reiterating that the litigation does not constitute a criminal charge, criminal trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.