Presidency Defends Tinubu: Dismisses FBI, DEA Records Speculation!

The Presidency has taken steps to dismiss recent speculation surrounding an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This case involves records sought from American law enforcement agencies pertaining to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. In a statement released on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the Presidency clarified that the matter is strictly a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act and is not a criminal case against President Tinubu. It strongly emphasized that the court has not found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, urging both the media and the public to differentiate between verified court proceedings and partisan speculation.

Tracing the origins of the matter, the Presidency highlighted that 23 years ago, specifically on February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos had informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tafa Balogun, via letter, that an FBI records check had yielded no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for the then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The current FOIA litigation commenced in 2022 when Mr. Aaron Greenspan submitted requests to various United States government agencies, seeking records related to President Tinubu. Following the agencies' decision to withhold certain records or decline to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan initiated Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023. Subsequently, the court permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, allowing him to assert his rights.

During the proceedings, several defendants asserted what is known as the “Glomar defence,” a standard legal defence frequently invoked by United States law enforcement agencies. This defence essentially means that a government agency is neither in a position to deny nor admit the existence of an investigation. Its primary purpose is to protect government personnel, as well as the sensitive techniques and sources employed by law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. Based on the invocation of this defence, the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The court ruled that these agencies should be removed from the proceedings, leaving specific aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further consideration.

In compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records. However, portions of these documents were redacted under exemptions provided by United States law. The plaintiff, Mr. Greenspan, subsequently challenged the decisions of the FBI and DEA to redact portions of the documents produced. In response, the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the plaintiff’s request for the documents to be produced without redactions, rejecting the application on several established legal grounds.

The Presidency outlined the key reasons for these redactions, citing various FOIA exemptions: Firstly, some of the documents are protected from public disclosure by law, including records relating to grand jury proceedings. Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, for instance, are exempt from public disclosure, and the Pen Register Act further protects information regarding certain court orders authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap-and-trace device. These categories fall under FOIA Exemption 3. Secondly, certain documents are protected by attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges, as they contain instances where FBI and DEA agents sought or received legal advice from attorneys of the United States Department of Justice, falling under FOIA Exemption 5. Thirdly, some documents were specifically prepared for law enforcement purposes. Fourthly, other documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, falling under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Fifthly, certain documents, if disclosed, could reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise the techniques utilized by law enforcement agencies in investigating crimes, making them protected under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E). President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his legal counsel, has also asserted his rights as guaranteed under FOIA Exemption 7(C).

Regarding the procedural timeline, 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, in turn, have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes that the plaintiff might subsequently file.

The Presidency reiterated that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. It firmly maintained that the case solely concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions. It also emphasized to the Nigerian media that the case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court. Judge Howell will determine the outcome of the matter based on the evidence, applicable law, and the arguments presented by the parties, rather than what the Presidency described as the “wishful preference” of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr. Von Batten. It further dismissed recent public commentary by Mr. Karl von Batten, clarifying that neither he nor his client are parties to the case and have been inaccurately portrayed as central to the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Presidency stressed that the litigation remains 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. With the FBI and DEA having produced records with redactions, the sole remaining issue before the court is whether those redactions are lawful. The United States District Court will decide this issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary. The Presidency, therefore, urged the Nigerian media and members of the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation, making this clarification necessary amid recent speculative reports surrounding President Tinubu’s FBI and DEA records.