The presidency, on Thursday, explained why President Bola Tinubu is seeking to stop the release of unredacted records about him by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
It argued that parts of the documents are protected under U.S. law and should remain confidential.
It said contrary to claims circulating online, the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is neither a criminal trial nor fresh evidence of wrongdoing against President Tinubu.
The presidency described the litigation as a dispute over whether the FBI and DEA lawfully withheld portions of records requested under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga said the clarification became necessary due to speculative reports on the case.
“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.
The clarification comes days after Tinubu, through his lawyer, Christopher W. Carmichael, urged the U.S. court to reject a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for the release of investigative records relating to him.
Greenspan had sued the FBI, DEA and other U.S. agencies after they either withheld records he requested under FOIA or declined to confirm whether such records existed.
Among the documents sought are the FBI’s file on Tinubu, interview records from the early 1990s and documents connected with a 1993 civil forfeiture case involving about $460,000.
But Tinubu’s legal team argued that releasing the records would violate his privacy rights and maintained that FOIA should not be used as a tool to obtain information government agencies collected about private individuals.
According to court filings, Tinubu also argued that although aspects of the 1993 forfeiture proceedings are already in the public domain, that does not extinguish his privacy rights over other investigative records that have never been disclosed.
The presidency said the lawsuit itself dates back to 2023, after Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court following the agencies’ response to his FOIA requests. The court later permitted Tinubu to participate in the case as an intervenor.
It also recalled that the dispute comes more than two decades after the American Consulate in Lagos wrote to then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, allegedly informing him that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, outstanding warrants or wanted notices against Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
Onanuga said during the proceedings, several U.S. agencies relied on what is known as the “Glomar” response, which allows government agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records where disclosure could undermine law enforcement interests.
The presidency explained that the defence exists to protect investigators, confidential sources and investigative methods.
It said the court accepted the argument in respect of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and granted summary judgment in their favour and removed them from the case.
The dispute now concerns records produced by the FBI and DEA.
According to the presidency, both agencies complied with the court’s earlier order by releasing 399 pages of records, but withheld or redacted parts of the documents under exemptions permitted by U.S. law.
Unsatisfied with those redactions, Greenspan asked the court to compel the agencies to release the records in full.
The FBI and DEA opposed the request through the U.S. Department of Justice, arguing that some of the withheld material is specifically protected by law.
According to Onanuga, exemptions relied upon by the agencies cover grand jury proceedings, confidential legal advice exchanged between investigators and Justice Department lawyers, records prepared for law enforcement purposes, information whose disclosure could amount to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and material capable of revealing confidential sources or investigative techniques.
It added that Tinubu has also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in law enforcement records.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the statement said.
The presidency also faulted attempts to portray the litigation as a criminal prosecution of the president.
It said, “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 FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful.
“The Nigerian media should note that this 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.”
It added that Karl von Batten and his client are not parties to the suit despite public claims suggesting otherwise.
“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 urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.”
