US Court Case Over Tinubu Records Is Civil, Not Criminal – Presidency

The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing case before a United States federal court concerning the release of records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a civil Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute and not a criminal case.

The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday night by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.

Onanuga said the case, filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arose from FOIA requests made in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.

He stressed that the proceedings do not constitute a criminal charge or trial against the Nigerian president.

“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,” Onanuga said.

According to the Presidency, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 in 2023 after some US agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence.

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

The Presidency explained that some of the agencies invoked the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows US government agencies, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records or investigations exist.

It said 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, removing them from the proceedings.

However, claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remained under consideration.

The FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions contained in US law.

The Presidency said the agencies argued that some of the withheld information was protected from disclosure, including grand jury materials and information covered by the Pen Register Act.

Other grounds cited included attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law-enforcement exemptions, personal privacy protections, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

Onanuga added that Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to personal privacy in law-enforcement records.

The Presidency said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s submissions, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond.

It maintained that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the statement said.

The Presidency also criticised recent public commentary surrounding the case, urging the media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and political speculation.

It maintained that the matter remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.

“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 added that the remaining issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful.