Trending 
The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act case involving President Bola Tinubu before a United States court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
In a statement issued on Thursday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga said recent reports had created a misleading impression about the proceedings.
“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 Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” Onanuga said.
Onanuga said the case dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
“After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Mr Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023,” Onanuga said.
He said the court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
Onanuga also referred to a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that “an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.”
Onanuga said the defendants invoked the “Glomar defence” during the proceedings.
He described it as “a standard defence that US law enforcement agencies invoke from time to time.”
“It simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation. It protects government personnel and the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes,” he said.
He said the United States District Court subsequently granted summary judgement in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
Onanuga said the remaining aspects of the case involve claims against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Onanuga said the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
He said the agencies defended the redactions on several grounds, including protections covering grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law enforcement materials, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
Onanuga said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Onanuga said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” he said.
Onanuga urged the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation, adding that the case is “exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court.”
