The Presidency has explained why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is opposing the release of unredacted records held by United States law enforcement agencies, stating that the matter involves lawful exemptions under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and does not constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
In a statement issued amid renewed public debate over the matter, the Presidency clarified that the ongoing litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is strictly a civil dispute over access to government records.
It stressed that neither the court nor any U.S. government agency has found President Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the case.
According to the statement, the dispute dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain files existed, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency recalled that 23 years ago, the U.S. Consulate in Lagos—in a February 4, 2003 letter to then-Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun—stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for Tinubu, who was then the governor of Lagos State.
Explaining the current legal battle, the Presidency said U.S. government agencies invoked the “Glomar defense”—a legal principle that allows agencies under specific circumstances to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records. It noted that the defense is used to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources, and investigative techniques.
The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor 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 suit.
The remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency stated that the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, have already released 399 pages of records, though portions were redacted under exemptions provided by U.S. law. Greenspan has since challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold those portions.
According to the statement, the FBI and DEA, through the U.S. Department of Justice, opposed the demand for unredacted documents based on several legal grounds, including:
Exemption 3 Statutory protection for specific records, including grand jury proceedings and information relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.
Exemption 5 Privilege protections covering attorney-client and attorney work-product materials.
Exemption 6 & 7(C) Privacy protections safeguarding information that could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Exemption 7(D) & 7(E) Protection of law-enforcement techniques and information that could expose confidential sources.
The Presidency added that President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his legal team, also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C) to protect his personal privacy regarding law-enforcement records.
It emphasized that the President’s legal stance should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency stated, reiterating that the central issue before the court is whether the agencies’ redactions comply with U.S. law.
The statement further disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA, and the President have until September 18 to respond.
The case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who will rule based on the evidence, applicable law, and arguments presented.
Dismissing recent public statements by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten, the Presidency noted that neither Von Batten nor his client, Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the litigation, accusing Von Batten of falsely portraying himself as a central figure in the proceedings.
“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 statement said.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organizations and the public to distinguish between official court proceedings and partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.
