Strictly Civil Record Dispute, Not Criminal — Presidency Addresses US FOIA Case Involving Tinubu
The Nigerian Presidency has explicitly clarified the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, describing it strictly as a civil records-disclosure dispute rather than a criminal case.
Bayo Onanuga, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy made the clarification dispelling speculative reports surrounding the matter in a statement issued on September 3, 2026.
According to the Presidency, the case originated in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan, reportedly working alongside Nigerian opposition figures, submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records related to President Tinubu. After the agencies either withheld the records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan initiated Civil Action No. 23-1816 in 2023. The US court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
During the litigation, several US agencies successfully invoked the “Glomar defence,” a legal standard allowing law enforcement to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation to protect personnel, techniques, and sources. Based on this defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing them from the case.
However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were required to address aspects of the claims.
In compliance with court directives, both agencies produced 399 pages of records with specific portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law. The plaintiff has since challenged these redactions.
The Presidency outlined five legal grounds upon which the FBI and DEA rejected the plaintiff’s demands for unredacted documents:
1. Some of the documents are protected from being revealed to the public by law, for example, Grand Jury proceedings. The law exempts transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings from public disclosure. The Pen Register Act also protects from disclosure information about certain court order(s) authorising or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device. (FOIA Exemption 3)
2. Some of the documents fall squarely within the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges. Some documents contain instances where FBI and DEA agents sought and/or received legal advice from USDoJ attorneys. (FOIA Exemption 5)
3. Some of the documents were prepared for law enforcement purposes. (FOIA Exemption 5)
4. Some of the documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)).
5. Some of the documents, if disclosed, will reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise the techniques that law enforcement agencies use in investigating crimes. (FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E)).
The statement noted that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply to the submissions made by the defendants and the intervenor. Consequently, the FBI, DEA, and President Tinubu’s legal team have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any new filings.
The Presidency emphasized that the release or withholding of records under the FOIA does not establish criminal liability, as the litigation focuses entirely on the lawful application of statutory exemptions. It also dismissed recent commentary by Karl von Batten, maintaining that neither he nor his client are parties to the case.
Reiterating that the outcome rests solely with Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court, the Presidency urged the public and the media to rely on verified court proceedings rather than partisan speculation.
