Presidency Dismisses Speculation Over Tinubu’s FBI, DEA Records Case

The Presidency has dismissed recent speculation surrounding the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involving records sought from American law enforcement agencies relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The Presidency, in a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, clarified that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act and not a criminal case against President Tinubu.

It stressed that the court has not found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, urging the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.

The Presidency traced the background of the matter to 23 years ago, when the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for the then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

According to the statement, the current FOIA litigation began in 2022 when Mr Aaron Greenspan submitted requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.

The Presidency said that after the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

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

The Presidency explained that during the proceedings, the defendants asserted what it described as the “Glomar defence,” a standard defence invoked from time to time by United States law enforcement agencies.

It said the defence simply means that a government agency is not in a position to deny or admit the existence of an investigation and is intended to protect government personnel, as well as the techniques and sources used by law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting crimes.

Based on the invocation of the defence, the Presidency said the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.

The court ruled that the agencies should be removed from the proceedings, leaving aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration for further consideration.

The statement said that in compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law.

It said the plaintiff subsequently challenged the decisions of the FBI and DEA to redact portions of the documents produced.

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the plaintiff’s request for the documents to be produced without redactions.

The agencies rejected the application for the unredacted release of the documents on several grounds.

First, the Presidency said some of the documents are protected from public disclosure by law, including records relating to grand jury proceedings.

It explained that transcripts of grand jury proceedings are exempt from public disclosure, while the Pen Register Act also protects information about certain court orders authorising or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap-and-trace device.

The statement said these categories fall under FOIA Exemption 3.

Second, it said some of the documents fall within the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges, noting that certain records contain instances where FBI and DEA agents sought and/or received legal advice from attorneys of the United States Department of Justice.

The Presidency said this falls under FOIA Exemption 5.

Third, it said some of the documents were prepared for law enforcement purposes.

Fourth, the statement said some of the documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, citing FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Fifth, the Presidency said some of the documents, if disclosed, could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise the techniques used by law enforcement agencies in investigating crimes.

It said these records are protected under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).

The Presidency added that President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights as guaranteed under FOIA Exemption 7(C).

It said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the intervenor.

The FBI, DEA and the intervenor, according to the statement, have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes that the plaintiff might subsequently file.

The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

It maintained that the case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.

The Presidency said the Nigerian media should note that the case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court.

According to the statement, Judge Howell will determine the outcome of the matter based on the evidence, applicable law and the arguments presented by the parties.

The Presidency said the outcome would not be determined by what it described as the “wishful preference” of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.

It also dismissed recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten, saying he and his client had been inaccurately portrayed as central to the proceedings.

The Presidency maintained that neither was a party to the case.

It reiterated that the litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the Freedom of Information Act and does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.

The statement said the FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions and that the remaining issue before the court is whether those redactions are lawful.

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

The Presidency consequently urged the Nigerian media and members of the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from what it described as partisan speculation.

The Presidency said it considered it necessary to clarify the nature and status of the ongoing FOIA case amid recent speculative reports surrounding President Tinubu’s FBI and DEA records.