NEWS
Presidency Clarifies Tinubu’s Role in US FOIA Case, Says Dispute Is Not Criminal Proceeding
Presidency Clarifies Tinubu’s Role in US FOIA Case, Says Dispute Is Not Criminal Proceeding
The Presidency has moved to clarify President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s involvement in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before a United States federal court, insisting that the proceedings are civil in nature and do not constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian president.
The clarification comes amid renewed public interest in records held by United States law enforcement agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), following fresh developments in litigation seeking access to documents relating to Tinubu.
In a statement issued on Thursday, September 3, 2026, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said recent reports and commentary had created an impression that Tinubu was facing criminal proceedings in the United States.
The Presidency, however, stressed that the case before the court concerns access to government records and whether American agencies are legally permitted to disclose certain information contained in those records.
“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,” the statement said.
How the FOIA case began:
The case is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and centres on requests for records relating to Tinubu that were submitted to several US government agencies.
According to the Presidency, the matter dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests seeking records relating to Tinubu.
After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether particular records existed, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the Washington, D.C. federal court in 2023.
Onanuga explained that Tinubu was subsequently permitted by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also drew attention to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun.
According to the statement, the letter indicated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who at the time was a former governor.
FBI, DEA records at centre of dispute:
A significant part of the litigation now concerns records held by the FBI and DEA and whether portions of those records can legally be released to the public.
The Presidency said several US government agencies initially relied on what is known as the “Glomar defence,” a legal position that allows an agency, in certain circumstances, to decline to confirm or deny the existence of particular records or an investigation where doing so could reveal protected law enforcement information.
According to Onanuga, the court later granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing those agencies from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the dispute concern the FBI and DEA.
The Presidency said the two agencies, acting in compliance with court orders, produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Greenspan subsequently challenged the redactions and sought access to the withheld portions.
The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, arguing that some of the information could not lawfully be disclosed.
The reasons cited include protections relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court orders, attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, law enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
Tinubu, according to the Presidency, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain personal information where its disclosure could amount to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said. “The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.”
Lobbying campaign adds political dimension:
The legal dispute has attracted additional attention following renewed lobbying activity in Washington by Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., a Republican policy advisory and lobbying firm that has publicly raised allegations concerning Tinubu and an old US investigation involving suspected heroin trafficking.
The firm recently said it had begun contacting members of the US Congress and senior congressional staff over records involved in the FOIA litigation.
“Members of Congress and senior congressional staff returned to Washington today, and we wasted no time,” the firm said in a statement posted on its verified X account.
It said it had “immediately began reaching out to our friends on Capitol Hill” to brief them on the matter.
The lobbying firm has argued that the controversy should not be viewed solely through the lens of Nigerian domestic politics because the records in question involve American law enforcement agencies.
It has also argued that the matter could have implications for US foreign policy, intelligence cooperation, law enforcement collaboration and counter-narcotics policy.
The company questioned whether Tinubu should be viewed by American policymakers as “a strategic asset or an increasing national-security liability.”
Presidency distances US government from lobbyists’ claims:
The Presidency, however, has rejected attempts to portray statements or activities by the lobbying firm as an official position of the United States government.
In an earlier response, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, described the statements emanating from the firm as politically motivated and warned against treating them as the position of Washington.
“The incendiary press releases being carefully churned out from Washington are public relations propaganda sheets passed off as the view of the U.S. Government. They are not,” Dare said.
He also challenged the lobbyists to produce evidence supporting allegations they had presented as intelligence.
“Sane minds must categorically dismiss these reports as fabricated, politically motivated, and entirely unsupported by evidence. The report presents no intelligence document, no named Western official, and no evidence of any exchange involving Nigeria’s secrets or resources,” Dare said.
He added, “It is nothing more than political speculation packaged as classified information. We demand that they produce the so-called ‘highly classified intelligence report,’ identify their unnamed sources, and provide tangible evidence for their wild allegations.”
Dare further rejected suggestions that comments by Karl Von Batten, founder of the lobbying firm, represented the position of the Trump administration.
“Dr. Karl Von Batten’s comments represent solely the position of an individual associated with Atiku-linked political interests, not the U.S. government or President Trump,” he said.
1993 forfeiture case resurfaces:
The controversy has also revived attention on a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in Chicago involving approximately $460,000 linked to accounts associated with Tinubu.
The money was forfeited to the US government, but the proceeding was civil in nature and did not result in a criminal conviction against Tinubu.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing and has not been convicted of drug trafficking in the United States.
His US legal team has also defended the decision to challenge the release of portions of the FBI and DEA records, arguing that the lawyers are relying on protections expressly provided under American law.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Wole Afolabi, who is part of Tinubu’s legal team in the United States, said failing to invoke available legal protections would amount to a dereliction of professional duty.
“So precisely what we are doing is going under the coverage of the law. It’s what the law gives us the right to do. It would amount to professional malpractice on our part if we don’t take advantage of what the law offers,” Afolabi said.
He also argued that the historical forfeiture proceeding should not be interpreted as evidence of a criminal conviction.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it. He would have been indicted,” Afolabi said.
The lawyer further cautioned against automatically interpreting the appearance of a person’s name in investigative records as evidence of guilt.
“Anyone can be a subject of investigation. That’s just how it goes. I mean, there’s a presumption of innocence,” he said.
FBI submits additional records under seal:
The latest development in the litigation followed the submission of additional FBI records to Judge Beryl A. Howell for private examination on August 28.
Rather than making the documents public, the FBI submitted them “under seal, ex parte, in camera” for the judge’s review.
The agency has argued that publicly explaining the basis for certain redactions could expose information protected under US law.
In an earlier filing, the FBI said, “The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”
Court, not political statements, to determine outcome:
The Presidency stressed that the next stage of the case will ultimately be determined by the US federal court and not by political statements originating from Nigeria or Washington.
According to the statement, Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu as an intervenor.
The FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by Greenspan.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the Presidency said.
It urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between actual court proceedings and political claims surrounding the controversy.
The Presidency maintained that the central legal question before the court is whether the FBI and DEA acted lawfully in withholding or redacting portions of the records.
It also rejected claims that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar or Karl Von Batten is central to the litigation, stressing that neither is a party to the case.
Ultimately, the court will determine whether the disputed records should remain withheld, be released in full or be disclosed with portions redacted.
DO YOU WANT TO WHISTLEBLOW, REPORT FRAUD, THEFT OR INJUSTICE OR INTIMIDATION? SEND US YOUR STORY/REPORT TO NEWSDESK@MEDIATODAY.NG
