…The agencies have produced 399 pages of records, but with portions redacted, leaving the court to determine whether those redactions are lawful.
…The Presidency’s message is blunt: the existence of records, their partial disclosure or the government’s refusal to release some information should not be presented as proof of criminal liability.
FRI SEPT 04 2026-theGBJournal| Nigeria’s presidency has launched a forceful effort to recast a politically charged court battle over US government records concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, insisting that the case in Washington is not a criminal prosecution and that no US court has found the Nigerian leader guilty of wrongdoing.
The intervention comes as a dispute over hundreds of pages of FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration records enters another stage in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The agencies have produced 399 pages of records, but with portions redacted, leaving the court to determine whether those redactions are lawful.
The Presidency’s message is blunt: the existence of records, their partial disclosure or the government’s refusal to release some information should not be presented as proof of criminal liability.
“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,” Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, said in a statement on Thursday.
The statement followed what the Presidency described as “recent speculative reports” concerning the case before the US District Court.
At the centre of the litigation are Freedom of Information Act requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency’s account places particular emphasis on the distinction between a request for government records and a criminal proceeding.
It also reaches back 23 years to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun.
According to the Presidency, the letter stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The current litigation, however, centres on what US agencies can legally disclose under FOIA.
During the proceedings, the defendants asserted the “Glomar defence”, 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,” the Presidency said.
The defence, it added, protects government personnel and the techniques and sources used by law-enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute crimes.
Based on the invocation of this 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.
Those agencies were removed from the proceedings, leaving aspects of the claims involving the FBI and DEA for further consideration.
The FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records in compliance with the court’s orders, but portions were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decisions to redact parts of the documents.
The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, rejected the application to produce the documents without redactions.
The agencies cited five broad categories of protection.
First, the Presidency said some documents are protected from public disclosure by law, including Grand Jury proceedings.
The Pen Register Act also protects information concerning certain court orders authorising or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap-and-trace device.
Those protections fall under FOIA Exemption 3.
Second, some documents fall within attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, including instances where FBI and DEA agents sought or received legal advice from US Department of Justice lawyers.
That falls under FOIA Exemption 5.
Third, some documents were prepared for law-enforcement purposes, also under FOIA Exemption 5.
Fourth, some documents contain information which, if released, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Those protections fall under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Fifth, some documents could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise techniques used by law-enforcement agencies in investigating crimes.
Those protections fall under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).
President Tinubu, the Presidency said, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C) on the advice of his lawyers.
That detail is significant to the Presidency’s argument: Tinubu is not merely the subject of records being sought; he has been permitted to participate in the litigation and is himself asserting privacy protections under US law.
The Presidency says the remaining dispute is therefore not whether Tinubu has been convicted or charged, but whether the FBI and DEA are entitled to keep portions of the records redacted.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the statement said.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.”
The political battle surrounding the litigation, however, is proving harder to separate from the legal proceedings.
The Presidency accused Aaron Greenspan of being known to work with Nigerian opposition figures including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar.
It also took aim at Karl von Batten, whose recent public commentary it said had inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings.
“Neither is a party to the case,” the Presidency said.
It added that the Nigerian media should understand that the case is “exclusively within the control” of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court.
“She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.”
The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes.
The FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency’s intervention therefore amounts to more than a legal explanation. It is also an attempt to establish the terms on which the Nigerian media should report the case.
Its central warning is that a document-disclosure battle should not be turned into a criminal case by political interpretation.
“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 Presidency said.
“The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful.”
The court, rather than politicians or commentators, will have the final word on that question.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the statement said.
The Presidency therefore urged the media and the public to “distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.”
By Charles IKE-OKOH
X-@theGBJournal|email:gbj@govbusinessjournal.com|govandbusinessj@gmail.com
