The Nigerian Presidency has moved to clarify the nature of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before a United States court, insisting that the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In a statement issued by Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said recent media reports had misrepresented the proceedings, which are before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the statement, the case traces back more than two decades to 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, warrants, or warrants against Tinubu, who was Lagos State governor at the time.
The current litigation stems from FOIA requests filed in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan, whom the Presidency described as someone who works with Nigerian opposition figures including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar. After several U.S. government agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 in 2023. President Tinubu was later admitted to the case as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the defendant agencies invoked the “Glomar defence,” a standard legal position in which an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of records tied to an investigation, to protect law enforcement personnel, sources and methods. On the strength of that defence, the court granted summary judgment removing the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the State Department, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service from the case, leaving only claims against the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration for further consideration.
The FBI and DEA subsequently produced 399 pages of records with portions redacted. Greenspan has challenged those redactions, but the agencies — through the Department of Justice — have defended them, citing several FOIA exemptions covering grand jury secrecy and pen register protections, attorney-client and work-product privilege, law-enforcement preparation, personal privacy, and the protection of confidential sources and investigative techniques. Tinubu has separately invoked his own privacy rights under one of the exemptions.
Court filings show the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to respond to the defendants’ and intervenor’s submissions, with the FBI, DEA and Tinubu’s legal team given until September 18, 2026, to reply in turn.
The Presidency stressed that the outcome rests solely with Judge Beryl A. Howell, who is overseeing the case, and pushed back against commentary from Karl von Batten, an associate of Atiku Abubakar, whom it said had wrongly presented himself and his client as central figures in a case to which neither is a party.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” the statement said, urging the media to separate verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.
