THE Presidency has clarified recent speculative reports concerning an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stressing that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
News Point Nigeria reports that the Presidency said the court has neither found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing nor is the case a criminal trial against him. It explained that the litigation concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions under United States law.
The clarification was contained in a statement sent to News Point Nigeria on Thursday, September 3, 2026, and signed by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President (Information & Strategy).
According to the Presidency, the matter comes 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
It said that in 2022, Mr Aaron Greenspan, who is known to work with Nigerian opposition figures, including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar, submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023. The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
During the proceedings, the defendants asserted the “Glomar defence”, a standard defence that US law enforcement agencies invoke from time to time. The Presidency explained that it simply means a government agency is not “in a position to deny or admit” the existence of an investigation, adding that the defence protects government personnel as well as the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes.
Based on the invocation of the defence, the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), directing that they be removed from the proceedings, while aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration remained for further consideration. Court records confirm that the case has involved FOIA requests to several US agencies and that Tinubu was permitted to intervene in the proceedings.
The Presidency said that, in compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law. The plaintiff subsequently challenged the FBI and DEA’s decisions to redact portions of the documents produced.
It said the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice (USDoJ), pushed back against the plaintiff’s requests and rejected the application to produce the documents without redactions on several grounds.
These included documents protected from public disclosure by law, such as Grand Jury proceedings and certain information relating to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3; documents covered by attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, including communications where FBI and DEA agents sought or received legal advice from USDoJ attorneys; and documents prepared for law enforcement purposes under FOIA Exemption 5.
Other grounds cited by the agencies, according to the Presidency, were that some documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), while others could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise law enforcement techniques used in investigating crimes under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
President Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights as guaranteed by FOIA Exemption 7(C). The Presidency said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes, while the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability, maintaining that the case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.
It urged the Nigerian media to note that the case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court, who will determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and the parties’ arguments, and not the preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Karl Von Batten.
It further said recent public commentary by Von Batten had inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings, stressing that neither is a party to the case. The Presidency reiterated that the litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA and does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu, adding that the FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions and that the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful.
The United States District Court, it said, will decide the issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary.
The Presidency therefore urged the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.