*** Says dispute centres on disclosure, redaction of government records
*** FBI, DEA released 399 pages, withheld portions under US law
**** Court yet to determine legality of disputed redactions

The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the President.

The clarification followed what the Presidency described as speculative reports and public commentary suggesting that the proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia amounted to a criminal case or judicial finding of wrongdoing against Tinubu.

In a statement on Thursday, the Presidency stressed that the court had neither charged nor convicted President Tinubu of any criminal offence, adding that the dispute centres on requests for access to records held by United States government agencies and whether portions of those records can lawfully remain redacted.

The Presidency recalled that the matter comes more than two decades after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Lagos State governor.

According to the statement, Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests in 2022 to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to the President.

Following the agencies’ withholding of certain records or their refusal to confirm or deny the existence of some records, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

The Presidency explained that, during the litigation, the defendants invoked what is known under US law as the “Glomar defence”, under which a government agency may decline to confirm or deny the existence of certain records where doing so could reveal protected information.

It said the defence is routinely invoked by US law-enforcement and intelligence agencies where disclosure could expose investigative sources, methods or other protected information.

The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing those agencies from the proceedings.

The remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The Presidency said that, in compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA released 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.

The plaintiff subsequently challenged the agencies’ decisions to withhold portions of the records.

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the demand for disclosure of the unredacted documents on several legal grounds.

These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3.

The agencies also relied on exemptions protecting attorney-client communications and attorney work product, as well as records prepared for law-enforcement purposes.

Other exemptions cited relate to the protection of personal privacy, confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques and procedures.

The Presidency added that President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.

The statement said the next stage of the proceedings would be determined by the parties’ filings before the court.

It noted that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the intervenor, while the FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond.

The Presidency further cautioned against interpreting the release or withholding of records under FOIA as evidence of criminal liability.

“Release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the statement said, stressing that the central issue before the court is access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.

It also rejected recent commentary suggesting that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or Karl von Batten, whom it described as associated with the former vice-president, are central parties to the litigation.

The Presidency said neither Atiku nor von Batten is a party to the case, adding that the proceedings remain under the control of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

It said the outcome would ultimately be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties, rather than political commentary.

The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and partisan interpretations of the litigation.

It reiterated that the case remains a civil FOIA dispute and does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.