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, not a criminal case.

In a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the Presidency said recent reports had “speculatively” portrayed the case as a criminal proceeding against Tinubu.

The case, identified as Civil Action No. 23-1816, is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to the Presidency, Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests in 2022 to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced the litigation in 2023.

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

The Presidency said the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”.

It explained that the defence allows US government agencies to decline to confirm or deny whether certain records or investigations exist, particularly where disclosure could expose law-enforcement sources, methods or investigations.

The court consequently granted summary judgment in favour of the agencies and removed them from the proceedings, leaving aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further consideration.

The FBI and DEA subsequently released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.

Greenspan challenged the redactions and sought access to the documents in unredacted form.

The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request on several grounds.

These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain court orders under FOIA Exemption 3; attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges under Exemption 5; protection of law-enforcement records; privacy protections under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and safeguards for confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).

The statement added that Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in law-enforcement records.

The Presidency also referenced a February 4, 2003 letter from the US 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 Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

According to the Presidency, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and the presidential intervenor. The FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.

Onanuga stressed that the disclosure or withholding of government records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

He said the central issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA comply with US law.

The Presidency also rejected recent commentary by Karl von Batten, saying neither he nor his client, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the proceedings.

“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” the statement said.

It added that the case would ultimately be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties, rather than political commentary.

The Presidency urged the media and the public to distinguish between the verified court proceedings and what it described as partisan speculation surrounding the case.