The Presidency has moved to clarify the nature of an ongoing legal dispute involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court, stressing that the proceedings concern the disclosure of government records under the US Freedom of Information Act and do not amount to a criminal trial against the Nigerian President.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy, as the litigation continues over records requested from several US government agencies concerning the Nigerian leader.
According to the Presidency, the case is a civil records-disclosure matter rather than a criminal proceeding. It stressed that no US court has convicted Tinubu of a criminal offence or determined that he committed criminal wrongdoing.
“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” the statement said.
The Presidency also drew attention to an earlier communication involving the American Consulate in Lagos and Nigerian authorities. It said that in a letter dated February 4, 2003, the consulate 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 serving as governor.
The statement said the present dispute emerged much later, beginning in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records connected to Tinubu.
The Presidency said the agencies either withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny whether some records existed. Greenspan subsequently initiated Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
President Tinubu was later permitted by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, according to the statement.
What the FOIA dispute concerns
The Presidency explained that the proceedings have involved questions about the extent to which US government agencies are required to disclose records under FOIA and whether certain material can legally remain withheld or redacted.
During the case, the defendants relied on what is known as the “Glomar defence”. The Presidency described this as a recognised position sometimes used by US law enforcement agencies when they cannot confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
It said the defence is designed to protect government personnel as well as investigative techniques and sources used by law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
On the basis of that defence, the US District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.
The Presidency said those agencies were subsequently removed from the proceedings, while parts of the claims concerning the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration remained under consideration.
The statement said the FBI and DEA eventually produced 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders. However, portions of those documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
The dispute therefore shifted toward the redactions, with the plaintiff challenging the decision by the FBI and DEA to withhold portions of the records.
The two agencies, acting through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request for disclosure of the documents in unredacted form.
According to the Presidency, the agencies cited several legal protections for their position.
Why some records remained redacted
One of the grounds cited concerns grand jury proceedings. The Presidency said US law protects certain grand jury material from public disclosure, meaning records relating to such proceedings cannot simply be released under FOIA.
Another exemption cited was linked to the Pen Register Act, which protects information concerning certain court orders authorising or approving the installation and use of pen registers or trap-and-trace devices.
The Presidency identified that protection as falling under FOIA Exemption 3, which covers information specifically protected from disclosure by another statute.
The agencies also relied on FOIA Exemption 5 for documents covered by attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protection.
The statement said some of the records contained instances in which FBI and DEA personnel sought or received legal advice from lawyers within the US Department of Justice.
The Presidency’s central argument is therefore that the existence of the court proceedings should not be interpreted as evidence that Tinubu is personally facing a criminal prosecution in the United States.
Instead, it maintains that the litigation is principally concerned with requests for government records, the agencies’ obligations under FOIA and the legality of withholding or redacting particular portions of documents.
The government also highlighted the distinction between a court considering whether records should be disclosed and a criminal court determining whether an individual committed an offence.
Its clarification comes against the background of public discussion surrounding the case and the nature of the documents requested from US agencies.
By stressing the procedural character of the litigation, the Presidency said the matter should not be portrayed as a criminal trial in which Tinubu is a defendant facing a determination of guilt.
The statement further pointed to the 2003 communication from the American Consulate as part of its explanation of the historical record surrounding the issue.
According to the Presidency, that letter stated that an FBI records check at the time found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu.
The administration’s position is that the current FOIA litigation must therefore be understood within its proper legal context, rather than being described as a criminal case against the President.
The proceedings involving the FBI and DEA remain focused on disputes surrounding the disclosure and redaction of records, while other agencies previously involved in the case obtained summary judgment and were removed from the proceedings.
The Presidency has consequently urged that the case not be characterised as a criminal prosecution or as a judicial finding of criminal guilt against President Tinubu.
Tinubu Not on Trial in US, Presidency Clarifies Amid FOIA Records Dispute
