JUST IN: Tinubu Not Under Criminal Trial - Presidency

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

The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, amid what the Presidency described as speculative reports about the case.

According to Onanuga, the matter is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and concerns requests for access to government records under the US Freedom of Information Act.

He stressed that neither the court nor the proceedings had found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

The Presidency traced the background of the matter to 2003, when the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, 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.

Onanuga said that in 2022, Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

He said after some agencies withheld certain 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 allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

The Presidency explained that several 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 where doing so could reveal protected information.

Onanuga said the court consequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing them from the proceedings.

He added that aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained under consideration.

According to the statement, the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.

The plaintiff 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 disclosure of the unredacted materials.

The Presidency listed several grounds cited by the agencies for the redactions, including the protection of grand jury proceedings and information relating to certain court-authorised surveillance measures under FOIA Exemption 3.

Other grounds included attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law-enforcement-related material, protection of personal privacy, and the need to protect confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques.

Onanuga said President Tinubu had also, on the advice of his lawyers, asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy interests in law-enforcement records.

The Presidency said the litigation remained ongoing, with the plaintiff expected to file opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes by September 11, 2026.

It added that the FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, would have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.

The statement stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA did not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the Presidency said.

Onanuga also dismissed recent commentary by Karl von Batten, whom he described as an associate of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, saying neither Atiku nor Von Batten was a party to the case.

He maintained that the outcome of the litigation would be determined exclusively by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.

The Presidency therefore urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the verified proceedings before the US court and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.