The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act case involving President Bola Tinubu before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case.
In a statement on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the case did not amount to a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against Tinubu.
It also said the court had not found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” the statement said.
The Presidency said the matter dated back to 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
According to the statement, the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, prompting Greenspan to commence Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also referenced a February 4, 2003, letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor.
It said that during the proceedings, the defendants invoked the “Glomar defence,” which it described as a standard defence used from time to time by US law enforcement agencies.
“It simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation. It protects government personnel and the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes,” the statement explained.
The Presidency said the US District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
It added that aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration remained under consideration.
According to the statement, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records in compliance with the court’s orders, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
The plaintiff subsequently challenged the decisions of the FBI and DEA to redact portions of the documents.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the application for the unredacted documents, citing several FOIA exemptions.
It listed the exemptions as including records protected by law from public disclosure, including Grand Jury proceedings and certain information relating to pen registers or trap and trace devices.
It also cited documents covered by attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges, documents prepared for law enforcement purposes, information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and information that could reveal confidential sources or law enforcement techniques.
The statement said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
The Presidency said the plaintiff had until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor.
It added that the FBI, DEA and the intervenor would have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA did not establish criminal liability.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” it said.
It further stated that the case was under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court, who would determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law, and arguments of the parties.
“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court. She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten,” the statement said.
The Presidency also dismissed recent commentary by Karl von Batten, saying he and his client were not parties to the case.
“Recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings. Neither is a party to the case,” it said.
It reiterated that the litigation was a civil records-disclosure dispute and that the outstanding issue was whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA were lawful.
“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 FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful,” the Presidency said.
It added that the court would determine the issue based on the filings and applicable US law.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the statement said.
The Presidency therefore urged the media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and partisan speculation.
Source: punchng.com
FOLLOW US ON:
