The Presidency has said the ongoing case involving records connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil dispute over access to government documents, not a criminal prosecution. The clarification was made on Thursday in Abuja by Bayo Onanuga, the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, as public discussion continued over the Freedom of Information Act case.
CLICK THE LINK TO READ FULL LIST
CLICK THE LINK TO READ FULL LIST
Onanuga explained that the matter is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and centres on requests for government records made under the US Freedom of Information Act.
According to the Presidency, the case began in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan filed requests with several American government agencies for documents relating to Tinubu. Some of the agencies either refused to release certain records or declined to confirm whether such records existed.
Greenspan subsequently filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 at the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023. The court later allowed President Tinubu to join the proceedings as an intervenor, giving him a role in the dispute over the requested records.
The Presidency said the case should not be confused with a criminal trial or prosecution against the Nigerian President. It stated that the court has not convicted Tinubu of any criminal offence and that the current legal battle is focused on whether certain government records should be released to the public.
During the proceedings, several US government agencies relied on what is known as the Glomar response. This allows an agency, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular investigative records exist.
The Presidency said the legal position was used by 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 subsequently ruled in favour of those agencies and removed them from the case.
The remaining issues involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration continued before the court. The two agencies eventually released 399 pages of documents, although parts of the material were withheld or covered by redactions based on exemptions allowed under US law.
Related News
The person who requested the records challenged the agencies’ decision to keep some portions of the documents confidential. The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request and maintained that certain information could not legally be disclosed.
The agencies cited several legal protections for the withheld material. These included restrictions relating to grand jury proceedings, information protected under the Pen Register Act, legal work prepared by lawyers, confidential communications between lawyers and clients, law enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative methods.
The Presidency also said Tinubu, through his lawyers, had relied on an exemption under the US Freedom of Information Act concerning personal privacy in law enforcement records.
The legal process is still ongoing. The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to respond to filings made by the defendants and Tinubu’s legal team. The FBI, DEA and Tinubu are expected to respond to any such filing by September 18.
The Presidency said the release of some documents, or the refusal to release others, does not in itself prove that anyone committed a crime. It maintained that the central question before the court is whether the agencies acted lawfully when they withheld or redacted parts of the records.
The administration also rejected claims that Nigerian opposition figures or their associates are central participants in the case. It said the outcome would be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court based on the evidence, legal arguments and applicable American laws.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to separate the actual court proceedings from political claims surrounding the matter.
It further maintained that the case should be understood as a dispute over access to government information under US law rather than a criminal charge, trial or finding of wrongdoing against President Tinubu.
Comments are closed.