- The US case is not a criminal trial, but legitimate questions about records concerning Nigeria’s President deserve factual answers
By Princely Onyenwe | Editorial Desk
Nigeria should welcome the Presidency’s clarification on the ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation in Washington, D.C. The clarification is important because public discourse has increasingly blurred the distinction between a civil records-disclosure proceeding and a criminal prosecution.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has not been convicted by any American court of a criminal offence in this case, and the ongoing litigation should not be reported as though such a conviction exists. But clarification must not become a substitute for transparency.
The most responsible response to the controversy is neither to declare the President guilty on the basis of allegations nor to dismiss every uncomfortable question as political propaganda. Nigeria needs facts, the international community needs facts, and Nigerians, above all, deserve facts.
The case, filed by Aaron Greenspan in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, concerns requests for records from several U.S. government agencies relating to President Tinubu.
The litigation has involved agencies including the FBI, DEA, CIA, Department of State, IRS and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. It is important to stress that the existence of such litigation does not, by itself, constitute a criminal charge against President Tinubu.
However, the court record also contains facts that deserve to be reported accurately. In April 2025, Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on their earlier “Glomar” responses to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive investigative records concerning Tinubu. The court noted that the U.S. Department of Justice had already officially acknowledged that Tinubu was a subject of an investigation involving the FBI and DEA.
That ruling did not establish that President Tinubu committed a crime, convict him of drug trafficking or any other offence, or determine the truth of every allegation surrounding his past. It addressed the government’s response to FOIA requests and whether the agencies could continue refusing to acknowledge the existence of responsive records under the circumstances before the court.
This distinction is crucial because Nigerians deserve journalism that separates what a court actually decided from what political actors claim it decided.
The latest development is equally significant: according to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA have produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions contained in U.S. law. The government says the redactions concern areas including grand-jury secrecy, attorney-client privilege, law-enforcement interests, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
There is nothing inherently suspicious about lawful redaction. American FOIA legislation expressly provides exemptions designed to protect sensitive law-enforcement information, confidential sources, investigative methods, privileged communications and personal privacy. Consequently, the mere fact that some portions of the 399 pages have been withheld cannot reasonably be presented as proof of criminality.
But neither should the existence of lawful exemptions be used to suggest that every question surrounding the records has disappeared. It has not. The remaining legal dispute is precisely whether the particular redactions and withholdings being challenged are justified under American law.
The Presidency has also cited a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos stating that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for then-Governor Bola Tinubu. That information is relevant and should form part of the historical record, but it must also be interpreted carefully.
The absence of an arrest record, outstanding warrant or criminal arrest history is not necessarily equivalent to a declaration that no investigation of any kind ever existed. That distinction has become especially important because of the subsequent court proceedings and the official acknowledgments discussed in the federal court’s ruling.
Nigeria must therefore resist the temptation to turn a complicated legal matter into a simple political slogan. The question is not whether Nigerians should automatically believe the Presidency or its critics; the question is what the court documents, government records and applicable law actually establish.
The political identities of the people involved should also not become substitutes for evidence. Whether Aaron Greenspan has associations with Nigerian opposition figures, whether opposition politicians support disclosure, or what political consultants say about the matter cannot determine the authenticity or meaning of government records.
Political opposition does not make an allegation automatically false, just as political support for an allegation does not make it automatically true.
President Tinubu is entitled to due process, legal representation and the protections available under American law. Nigerians are equally entitled to ask legitimate questions about records concerning the person who occupies the highest elected office in their country.
Both principles can exist simultaneously without contradiction, and the responsible position is to defend the President’s legal rights while insisting that factual questions be addressed through evidence rather than political rhetoric.
Indeed, the best way to protect Nigeria’s image before the international community is not to pretend that controversial questions do not exist. It is to demonstrate that Nigeria is confident enough to confront difficult questions with evidence, restraint and institutional maturity.
A country does not protect its reputation by denying that scrutiny exists; it protects its reputation by showing the world that its institutions and leaders can withstand scrutiny.
The Presidency is correct that the American court, rather than political commentators, will ultimately determine the legal dispute. That principle should be respected by everyone. The parties should present their arguments, the agencies should comply with lawful orders, and the court should determine which records can be disclosed and which exemptions legitimately apply.
The September deadlines now provide a clear next stage in the process. The Presidency says the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply, while the FBI, DEA and President Tinubu have until September 18 to respond to whatever processes are filed. Nigerians and the international media should follow those proceedings closely and report developments from the court record rather than from social-media interpretations.
There is also a wider lesson for Nigeria. A nation’s reputation cannot be permanently protected through public-relations statements alone. It is strengthened when institutions are transparent, when leaders can withstand legitimate scrutiny, when journalists distinguish facts from allegations, and when citizens are allowed to ask difficult questions without being branded enemies of the state.
Nigeria should neither celebrate unproven allegations nor fear the truth. If the records ultimately contain no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by President Tinubu, lawful scrutiny and clarification should strengthen his position.
If portions of the records are legitimately protected by American law, the court should uphold those protections. If additional information can lawfully be disclosed, the public interest may be better served by disclosure. And if credible evidence of wrongdoing emerges against anyone, the appropriate legal institutions should deal with it according to the law.
That is how a serious democracy responds to controversy. Nigeria does not need propaganda in place of facts; it needs facts strong enough to survive scrutiny. In the final analysis, the country’s international reputation will not be protected by shouting down uncomfortable questions. It will be protected when Nigeria demonstrates that truth, evidence and the rule of law are stronger than political loyalty.
