“Not A Criminal Case” – Presidency Explains FBI, DEA Redactions In Tinubu’s US Files

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

The clarification came amid recent reports and commentary concerning the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

In a statement by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, yesterday, the Presidency said: “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.”

According to the statement, the case followed FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

The Presidency said after some records were withheld or the agencies declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court in 2023.

It added that the court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

Explaining the development, the Presidency said US agencies invoked the “Glomar defence”, which it described as a standard legal position allowing government agencies to say they are not “in a position to deny or admit” the existence of an investigation.

The statement said the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the proceedings.

It said the remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, and Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA.

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA have produced 399 pages of records, but portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions under US law.

“The Plaintiff challenged the FBI and DEA’s decisions to redact portions of the documents produced,” the statement said.

The Presidency said the agencies justified the redactions on several grounds, including protection of grand jury proceedings, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement information, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

Tinubu, it added, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which relates to personal privacy in law-enforcement records.

The Presidency further stressed 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,” it said.

On the next stage of the litigation, the Presidency said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18 to respond.

The statement also rejected recent political commentary surrounding the case, saying its outcome would be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court based on “the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments.”

“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the Presidency said.

It urged the media and the public to “distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.”