The Presidency has moved to clarify the nature of a legal proceeding involving President Bola Tinubu before a United States federal court, insisting that the matter is about access to government records and not a criminal prosecution.
The clarification was issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy.
Onanuga said the case was initiated after Aaron Greenspan submitted Freedom of Information Act requests in 2022 to several US government agencies for records concerning Tinubu.
The requests later resulted in a civil action filed in 2023 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after some agencies declined to release certain records or confirm whether they existed.
According to the Presidency, Tinubu was subsequently permitted to join the proceedings as an intervenor.
Onanuga said describing the case as a criminal proceeding against Tinubu was misleading.
“The matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act,” he said, stressing that no court had found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
The Presidency’s statement also referred to an earlier communication from the American Consulate in Lagos dated February 4, 2003.
Onanuga said the communication, sent to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI records check had not uncovered criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was serving as Lagos State governor at the time.
The current dispute, according to the statement, concerns the extent to which records requested under FOIA should be released to the plaintiff.
Several US agencies had relied on the so-called “Glomar defence”, a legal mechanism that allows agencies in certain circumstances to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular investigative records exist.
The court subsequently ruled in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and IRS on summary judgment, leaving the FBI and DEA-related issues for further consideration.
The FBI and DEA later released 399 pages of records, with some sections removed or obscured under exemptions provided by US law.
The plaintiff has challenged the redactions, while the agencies have defended their decision to withhold parts of the documents.
The reasons cited by the agencies include protections for grand jury material, information covered by the Pen Register Act, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, personal privacy and law-enforcement information.
The agencies also cited protections relating to confidential sources and investigative methods.
The Presidency said Tinubu had separately asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), following advice from his lawyers.
The legal process is still ongoing. According to Onanuga, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to submit an opposition and reply, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond.
The Presidency stressed that the outcome rests with the federal court and will be determined according to the evidence and relevant US law.
It also argued that the release, partial release or withholding of documents under FOIA should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of criminal liability.
The statement urged Nigerians and media organisations to rely on the actual court proceedings rather than political claims when reporting the case.
