The Presidency has moved to dispel reports surrounding an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records on President Bola Tinubu before a United States federal court in Washington, D.C.

In a statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency stressed that the matter is a civil dispute over access to government records and does not constitute a criminal case against Tinubu.

Onanuga said the case, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has not resulted in any finding of criminal wrongdoing against the Nigerian president.

The clarification comes against the backdrop of renewed public discussion over records sought from US government agencies concerning Tinubu.

According to the Presidency, the matter dates back to 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

The agencies either withheld some records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, prompting Greenspan to institute Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the Washington, D.C. federal court in 2023.

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

The Presidency explained that the US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which an agency may refuse to confirm or deny whether particular investigative records exist.

It said the defence is routinely used by US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to protect investigative sources, methods and personnel.

Following the invocation of the defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the proceedings.

The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration, however, remained subject to further consideration in the case.

The Presidency said the two agencies subsequently released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.

Greenspan challenged the redactions and sought disclosure of the withheld portions.

But the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request, citing several statutory exemptions under the FOIA.

The exemptions, according to the Presidency, cover information relating to grand jury proceedings and certain court orders, attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law-enforcement materials, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.

Tinubu, the statement added, has also invoked his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.

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

It noted that the current FOIA litigation is being handled exclusively by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Presidency said Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond.

Onanuga also rejected recent commentary by Karl von Batten, saying neither Von Batten nor former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the proceedings.

The Presidency accused the commentary of inaccurately portraying them as central to the litigation.

It maintained that the release or withholding of records under the FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA,” the Presidency said, urging the media and the public to distinguish between actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan speculation.

It added that the outstanding issue before the US court is whether the FBI and DEA’s redactions comply with applicable American law, insisting that the determination rests with the court and not political commentary.