ABUJA, Nigeria — The Presidency has clarified the nature of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C., stressing that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian president.

The clarification follows recent reports and commentary surrounding the litigation, which the Presidency said have created misleading impressions about the nature and status of the proceedings.

According to the Presidency, the case concerns requests for access to records held by United States government agencies and whether portions of documents released by the agencies were lawfully withheld or redacted under exemptions contained in US law.

It stressed that neither the filing of a FOIA lawsuit nor the withholding or redaction of government records constitutes a finding of criminal liability.

How the Tinubu FOIA case began

The Presidency said the background to the litigation dates back more than two decades.

It cited a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, outstanding warrants or wants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

The Presidency said the current litigation originated in 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

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

US agencies invoke FOIA exemptions

During the proceedings, the US government agencies invoked what is commonly known as the “Glomar response” or “Glomar defence”, under which an agency may decline to confirm or deny the existence of particular records when doing so could itself reveal protected information.

The Presidency explained that such responses are used under US law in circumstances involving sensitive law-enforcement or intelligence information, including the protection of investigative sources, methods and personnel.

The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA), the US Department of State, the US Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing those agencies from further proceedings.

The remaining aspects of the dispute concern records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

FBI, DEA release 399 pages with redactions

In compliance with court orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records. Some portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions provided by the US Freedom of Information Act.

The plaintiff challenged the agencies’ decisions to withhold portions of the records and sought the release of additional material without redactions.

The FBI and DEA, acting through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, arguing that the redactions are authorised by federal law.

The agencies cited several FOIA exemptions, including provisions covering:

• Grand jury and other information protected by law: Certain records, including grand jury materials and specified information relating to court-authorised surveillance devices, are protected from public disclosure under FOIA Exemption 3.
• Attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges: Some records contain communications in which FBI and DEA personnel sought or received legal advice from Department of Justice attorneys, falling within FOIA Exemption 5.
• Law-enforcement-related material: Other records were prepared in connection with law-enforcement activities and are subject to statutory protections.
• Personal privacy: Certain information was withheld because disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
• Confidential sources and investigative techniques: Other redactions were justified on the grounds that disclosure could identify confidential sources or expose investigative techniques protected under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E).

The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protections for personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.

Court to determine whether redactions are lawful

The next stage of the litigation is expected to focus on whether the FBI and DEA properly applied the relevant FOIA exemptions when redacting the documents.

The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and reply papers to the defendants’ and intervenor’s filings. The FBI, DEA and the intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.

The case remains before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, where the court will determine the legal questions arising from the parties’ filings and arguments.

The Presidency emphasised that the proceedings should not be interpreted as a criminal prosecution or judicial determination of wrongdoing against Tinubu.

Presidency urges media to separate court record from political commentary

The Presidency also urged Nigerian and international media organisations to distinguish between the contents of the court proceedings and claims made in political or public commentary.

It said the case is being determined exclusively within the US judicial system and that its outcome will depend on the evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties before the court.

The Presidency disputed recent public commentary suggesting that certain political actors or commentators are central parties to the litigation, maintaining that the court proceedings should be understood according to the formal record of the case.

It further stressed that the release, withholding or redaction of records under FOIA does not, in itself, establish that a crime was committed.

What the Tinubu FOIA case means

At its core, the litigation is about access to US government records and the legality of exemptions used to withhold or redact portions of those records.

The outstanding legal question is therefore whether the FBI and DEA acted within the scope of the US Freedom of Information Act when they withheld portions of the documents released to the plaintiff.

The Presidency said it expects the matter to be determined through the normal judicial process and urged the public to rely on verified court filings rather than political speculation.

The administration maintained that the FOIA litigation should not be characterised as a criminal trial or conviction involving President Tinubu.