The Presidency has defended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s opposition to the release of unredacted records held by United States law enforcement agencies, saying the documents are subject to legal protections under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Presidency said the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil dispute concerning access to government records and should not be construed as a criminal proceeding against the Nigerian president.
In a statement issued amid renewed public interest in the case, the Presidency maintained that neither the US government nor any court has found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in connection with the records.
The dispute, according to the statement, began in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
After some of the agencies declined to confirm or deny the existence of certain records or withheld documents, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
Tinubu was later permitted by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun.
According to the statement, the letter indicated that an FBI records check conducted at the time found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then serving as governor of Lagos State.
On the current litigation, the Presidency said US agencies had relied on what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that permits government agencies in certain circumstances to neither confirm nor deny whether investigative records exist.
It said the position is designed, among other things, to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and investigative methods.
The court subsequently 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 case.
The remaining dispute concerns records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA have so far released 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, but portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan has challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold the redacted portions and is seeking access to the unredacted records.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the request on several grounds permitted under FOIA.
It listed the exemptions as covering grand jury proceedings and certain information concerning pen registers and trap-and-trace devices; attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges; law-enforcement records; personal privacy; confidential sources; and law-enforcement techniques.
The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his legal team, had also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protection for personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.
It stressed that Tinubu’s position should not be interpreted as an admission of criminal conduct.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said.
It added that the central question before the court is whether the FBI and DEA acted lawfully in redacting and withholding portions of the records.
The Presidency said Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to submissions made by the defendants and Tinubu.
The FBI, DEA and the President are expected to respond by September 18.
The case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the dispute based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency also rejected recent comments by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten concerning the litigation, saying neither Von Batten nor his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
It accused the lobbyist of presenting himself and his client as more central to the proceedings than they are.
“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.
It urged the media and the public to separate the actual court proceedings from what it described as partisan and speculative commentary surrounding the case.
