The Nigerian Presidency has rejected reports suggesting that President Bola Tinubu is facing a criminal case in the United States over records being reviewed by a US court.
The Presidency said the matter is a civil Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute involving access to government records, not a criminal prosecution.
The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.
The statement followed renewed attention to proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The court is reviewing records released by the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning Tinubu, with parts of the documents redacted.
According to the Presidency, the case began with FOIA requests filed in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan.
Greenspan had requested records relating to Tinubu from several US government agencies.
The Presidency said some agencies withheld the requested records or declined to confirm whether they existed.
Greenspan subsequently filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court in 2023.
Tinubu was later allowed to participate in the case as an intervenor.
The Presidency also referred to an earlier FBI records check conducted more than two decades ago.
It said the US Consulate in Lagos, in a February 4, 2003 letter to then Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu.
At the time, Tinubu was serving as governor of Lagos State.
However, the Presidency acknowledged that some US agencies had relied on the “Glomar defence” in responding to the FOIA requests.
The defence allows US agencies, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist.
It is typically used where confirming the existence of records could expose sensitive law-enforcement information.
The court later 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.
Those agencies were subsequently removed from the case.
The remaining dispute involves records held by the FBI and DEA.
The Presidency said the two agencies released 399 pages of documents following court orders.
However, portions of the records were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Greenspan has challenged the redactions and is seeking access to the withheld information.
The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the request for unredacted documents.
They cited several FOIA exemptions, including protections for grand jury materials, law-enforcement information and confidential sources.
Other exemptions cited cover attorney-client communications, investigative techniques and personal privacy.
The Presidency said Tinubu has also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain personal privacy interests in law-enforcement records.
Onanuga stressed that the existence of the FOIA case or the withholding of documents does not amount to evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” he said.
He added that the dispute is primarily about access to government records and whether statutory exemptions were properly applied.
The Presidency said Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as an intervenor, have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by Greenspan.
The Presidency also dismissed claims by Karl von Batten that he and his client were central to the proceedings.
It said neither von Batten nor former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is a party to the case.
The Presidency accused von Batten of inaccurately portraying their roles in the litigation.
Onanuga said the outcome of the case rests with Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
He urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to separate the actual court proceedings from political claims surrounding the matter.
The Presidency maintained that the litigation does not constitute a criminal charge, criminal trial or judicial finding against Tinubu.
It said the key issue before the court is whether the FBI and DEA acted lawfully in redacting portions of the records they released.
