Presidency Fires Back At ‘Mischievous’ Claims, Says Court Has Found No Criminal Guilt

• Presidency says Tinubu’s US case is a civil FOIA dispute. It insists there is no criminal charge against the President. The court has not found him guilty of any wrongdoing. The dispute centres on access to and redaction of records.

• The FBI and DEA have released 399 pages of records. Some portions were redacted under US law. The plaintiff is challenging the withheld information. The court will determine whether the redactions are lawful.

• The Presidency says several US agencies invoked the Glomar defence. The defence allows agencies to neither confirm nor deny records. CIA, State Department, Treasury, IRS and EOUSA exited the case. Claims involving the FBI and DEA remain before the court.

• The Presidency accused political actors of misrepresenting the case. It said Atiku Abubakar and Karl von Batten are not parties to it. Further filings are expected before the September deadlines. Judge Beryl Howell will ultimately determine the dispute under US law.

September 03, () — The Presidency has launched a fresh defence of President Bola Tinubu over the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation in the United States, dismissing reports portraying the case as a criminal proceeding against the Nigerian leader as “speculative” and “mischievous”.

In a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency stressed that the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is strictly a civil dispute over access to government records.

It maintained that neither President Tinubu nor the Nigerian government is facing a criminal prosecution in the case, insisting that the court has not found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

reports that the statement came amid renewed public attention to the litigation involving requests for records relating to Tinubu made to several United States government agencies under the US FOIA.

Background

The dispute dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.

According to the Presidency, some of the agencies either withheld portions of the requested material or declined to confirm or deny whether particular records existed.

Greenspan subsequently instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

The court later allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, giving him a legal interest in protecting information he believes is covered by applicable exemptions under US law.

The Presidency also drew attention to a 2003 communication from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun.

The letter, dated February 4, 2003, reportedly stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

US Agencies Invoke ‘Glomar’ Defence

A major development in the litigation, according to the Presidency, was the invocation of what is known in US law as the “Glomar defence.”

The defence allows government agencies, in appropriate circumstances, to decline to confirm or deny whether particular records exist where doing so could itself disclose protected law-enforcement or intelligence information.

The Presidency said the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service successfully relied on the defence.

The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of those agencies and removed them from the proceedings, leaving issues involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration for further consideration.

FBI, DEA Release 399 Pages

Following the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records relating to the matter.

However, portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in the US FOIA.

Greenspan challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the records, seeking the disclosure of documents without the redactions.

The FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the request, arguing that the withheld portions are protected by statutory exemptions.

The agencies cited protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court-authorised pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. They also relied on exemptions protecting attorney-client communications and attorney work product, as well as information prepared for law-enforcement purposes.

Other redactions, according to the Presidency, relate to personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques whose disclosure could compromise law-enforcement operations.

President Tinubu has separately asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protection against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.

Court To Decide Legality Of Redactions

The Presidency emphasised that the central issue now before the court is whether the FBI and DEA acted lawfully in redacting portions of the documents they released.

It said the mere release, partial release or withholding of government records under FOIA does not establish criminal liability against any individual.

“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA,” the statement said, stressing that it “does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu.”

According to the Presidency, the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor.

The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, are expected to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff by September 18, 2026.

Presidency Hits Atiku, Von Batten

Tinubu – NEWS MEDIA” fetchpriority=”high” decoding=”async” class=”aligncenter size-full wp-image-475520″ src=”https://thewillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Atiku-Von-Batten-and-Tinubu.jpg” alt=”Atiku, Von Batten and Tinubu” width=”1200″ height=”800″ srcset=”https://thewillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Atiku-Von-Batten-and-Tinubu.jpg 1200w, https://thewillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Atiku-Von-Batten-and-Tinubu-300×200.jpg 300w, https://thewillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Atiku-Von-Batten-and-Tinubu-1024×683.jpg 1024w, https://thewillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Atiku-Von-Batten-and-Tinubu-630×420.jpg 630w, https://thewillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Atiku-Von-Batten-and-Tinubu-696×464.jpg 696w, https://thewillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Atiku-Von-Batten-and-Tinubu-1068×712.jpg 1068w” sizes=”(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px”/>The Presidency also took aim at what it described as political attempts to influence public perception of the case. It specifically rejected recent commentary by Karl von Batten, whom it said had inaccurately portrayed himself and his client as central to the proceedings.

According to the Presidency, neither Von Batten nor former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is a party to the case.

It accused those making political claims about the litigation of attempting to present a civil records-disclosure proceeding as something it is not.

“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court”, the Presidency said.

It added that the judge would determine the outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties rather than political commentary.

The Presidency urged journalists and members of the public to distinguish between verified developments in the US court proceedings and claims arising from partisan political commentary.

It maintained that the FBI and DEA had already produced records in compliance with court orders, with portions withheld pursuant to specific exemptions under American law.