The Federal Government has moved to clarify the nature of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, following a wave of speculative reports about the matter in recent days.
In a statement addressing the reports, the Presidency stressed that the case is a civil records-disclosure dispute filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, and not a criminal proceeding against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
It emphasised that the court has not made any finding of criminal wrongdoing against the President.
According to the statement, the matter has its roots more than two decades ago. In a letter dated February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos informed then Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun that an FBI records check had turned up no criminal arrest records, warrants, or warrants for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who was governor of Lagos State at the time.
The current litigation began in 2022, when Aaron Greenspan, described in the statement as someone who works with Nigerian opposition figures, including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar, filed FOIA requests with several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023. President Tinubu was later permitted by the court to join the case as an intervenor.
During proceedings, government defendants invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a standard position used by U.S. law enforcement agencies under which an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of records or an investigation. The defence exists to shield law enforcement techniques, sources, and personnel from exposure.
Relying on this defence, the district court granted summary judgment in favour of five agencies: the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing them from the case. Claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), however, remained for further consideration.
In compliance with court orders, the FBI and DEA released 399 pages of records, though portions were redacted under exemptions provided by U.S. law.
Greenspan has challenged those redactions, prompting pushback from the FBI and DEA, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, which cited several statutory exemptions in defending its position, including:
Exemption 3protecting materials such as Grand Jury transcripts and records tied to the Pen Register Act, which shields information about certain surveillance-related court orders.
Exemption 5 covering attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, as well as materials prepared for law enforcement purposes.
Exemptions 6 and 7(C) protecting against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) shielding the identities of confidential sources and law enforcement investigative techniques.
President Tinubu has separately asserted his own rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), acting on the advice of his legal team.
The plaintiff has been given until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition or reply to the arguments raised by the defendants and the intervenor, while the FBI, DEA, and the intervenor have their own deadline to respond further, according to the statement.
