Tinubu not facing criminal case over US records, presidency insists

The Presidency has explained why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is opposing the release of unredacted records held by United States law enforcement agencies, insisting that the matter is a civil dispute over access to government documents and not a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.

In a statement issued amid renewed public debate over the matter, the Presidency said the ongoing litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia centres on the application of lawful exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

It stressed that neither the court nor any US government agency has found President Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the case.

According to the Presidency, the dispute dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

Read Also:

Ganduje Named Grand Patron as Presidential Youth Unity Cup Targets 774 LGAs

Tinubu begins three-week vacation, heads to Europe

Mariya Bunkure Hosts Garki Market Leaders as Traders Back Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda

It said some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed, prompting Greenspan to file Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

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

The Presidency also referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

Why the records were withheld

Explaining the current dispute, the Presidency said US government agencies had invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records.

It said the position is designed to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

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, effectively removing them from the proceedings.

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

The Presidency said the FBI and DEA had already released 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.

Greenspan has challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the records and is seeking access to the unredacted documents.

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the demand on several legal grounds.

The exemptions cited include:

• FOIA Exemption 3, covering records protected from public disclosure by law, including grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.
• FOIA Exemption 5, protecting certain documents covered by attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges.
• Exemptions covering records prepared for law-enforcement purposes.
• FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), which protect against certain unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.
• FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E), which protect confidential sources and information that could reveal law-enforcement techniques.

The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.

It maintained that the President’s position should not be interpreted as an admission of criminal wrongdoing.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said, adding that the central question before the court is whether the agencies’ redactions comply with US law.

The Presidency disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu.

The FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18 to respond.

The case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the dispute based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.

Presidency dismisses Atiku link

The Presidency also dismissed recent commentary by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten concerning the case, saying neither Von Batten nor his client, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the litigation.

It accused Von Batten of inaccurately portraying himself and his client as central figures 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 Presidency said.

It urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.