Nigerian Presidency: Tinubu US FOIA Case Not Criminal, Clarifies Civil Nature

• The Nigerian Presidency clarified that the US legal case involving President Bola Tinubu is a civil records-disclosure dispute, not a criminal matter.
• The case, Civil Action No. 23-1816, stems from Aaron Greenspan's 2022 FOIA requests for records related to Tinubu, which agencies initially withheld.
• The US District Court granted summary judgment to several agencies, but claims against the FBI and DEA remain, with 399 pages of redacted records produced.
• Agencies and President Tinubu invoked various FOIA exemptions, including 7(C), to justify redactions and non-disclosure.
• Future filings in the case are scheduled for September 11, 2026, and September 18, 2026.

The Nigerian Presidency has issued a clarification regarding the nature of the legal proceedings involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States, asserting that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and not a criminal case.

The Nigerian Presidency has issued a clarification regarding the nature of the legal proceedings involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States, asserting that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and not a criminal case. This statement, released on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, explicitly refutes any suggestion of criminal charges, trials, or judicial findings against President Tinubu. The Presidency underscored that the US District Court has not found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

This ongoing Tinubu US FOIA case not criminal involves a request for information before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, specifically identified as Civil Action No. 23-1816. The clarification aims to distinguish the proceedings from any implication of criminal culpability, emphasizing that the core issue revolves around the disclosure of government records rather than an accusation of criminal conduct.

The genesis of this legal challenge dates back to 2022 when Aaron Greenspan initiated a series of FOIA requests. Greenspan sought various records pertaining to President Tinubu from multiple US government agencies. When these agencies either withheld certain documents or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan proceeded to file Civil Action No. 23-1816 in 2023 with the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Subsequently, the court granted President Tinubu permission to intervene in the proceedings.

Adding historical context to the President's legal standing, the Presidency referenced a letter from the American Consulate in Lagos, dated February 4, 2003. This communication, addressed to then-Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun, confirmed that an FBI records check had revealed no criminal arrest records or outstanding warrants for Tinubu, who was serving as governor at the time. This historical check further supports the Presidency's current assertion that the ongoing FOIA matter is purely civil.

During the course of the litigation, several defendant agencies invoked the “Glomar defence,” a standard legal strategy employed by US law enforcement. This defense mechanism allows a government agency to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, thereby safeguarding government personnel, investigative techniques, and confidential sources used in law enforcement operations. The US District Court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of several entities, including 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, effectively removing them from the lawsuit.

However, aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remain under judicial consideration. In compliance with court orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, though portions were redacted under various exemptions provided by US law. The plaintiff subsequently challenged these redactions. In response, the FBI and DEA, represented by the US Department of Justice, opposed the plaintiff's application for unredacted documents, citing several FOIA exemptions. These included records protected by law from public disclosure, such as Grand Jury proceedings and information related to pen registers or trap and trace devices. Further exemptions cited covered attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, documents prepared for law enforcement purposes, information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and details that could reveal confidential sources or law enforcement techniques. President Tinubu, acting on legal advice, also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).

The legal process for this civil records dispute has a defined timeline for future filings. The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to submit any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and President Tinubu as the intervenor. Following this, the FBI, DEA, and the intervenor will have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes put forth by the plaintiff. This structured progression underscores the procedural nature of the case, reinforcing the Presidency's position that the Tinubu US FOIA case not criminal in its essence, but rather a complex civil matter concerning information disclosure.

This clarification is crucial for lawyers advising high-profile clients on international information disclosure requests, particularly concerning the application of US FOIA, the Glomar defense, and specific exemptions like 7(C) in cases involving foreign officials. It underscores the distinction between civil records disputes and criminal proceedings, which can impact public perception and legal strategy.

Source: Original reporting via The Presidency's statement.