Nigerian Presidency Scrambles To Deny Criminal Case Against Tinubu As US Court Reviews FBI, DEA Records On Him

 

The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.

The Nigerian presidency has moved to dispel reports surrounding an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States involving records relating to President Bola Tinubu, insisting that the case is a civil dispute over access to government documents and not a criminal prosecution.

The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.

The statement came amid renewed public interest in the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have released hundreds of pages of records relating to Tinubu, with portions of the documents redacted.

According to the Presidency, the case originated from FOIA requests filed in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan, who sought records concerning Tinubu from several US government agencies.

The Presidency said that after some agencies either withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court in 2023.
President Tinubu was subsequently allowed by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

The Presidency also attempted to place the current litigation in the context of an earlier FBI records check conducted more 20 years ago.

It said the American Consulate in Lagos, in a February 4, 2003 letter to the then Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Lagos State governor.

However, the Presidency acknowledged that US agencies involved in the FOIA litigation had invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence” in relation to some of the requested records.

The Presidency said that the defence allows US government agencies, under certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist, particularly where doing so could expose sensitive law-enforcement information.

According to the Presidency, the US court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.

The remaining aspects of the case concern records held by the FBI and DEA.

The Presidency said the two agencies, following court orders, released 399 pages of documents but redacted portions of the records pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.

Greenspan has challenged the redactions and is seeking further disclosure of the withheld portions.

The FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the demand for the unredacted documents, citing several FOIA exemptions.

The exemptions, according to the Presidency, cover grand jury materials and information protected under the Pen Register Act; attorney-client and attorney work-product materials; law-enforcement records; information whose disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and information that could expose confidential sources or law-enforcement investigative techniques.

Tinubu has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain personal privacy interests in law-enforcement records, the Presidency said.

The Presidency stressed that the existence of the FOIA case or the withholding of documents should not be interpreted as evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” Onanuga stated, adding that the dispute concerns access to government records and the application of statutory exemptions.

The Presidency also said that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President, as intervenor, have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by Greenspan.

It further rejected claims by Karl von Batten that he and his client were central to the proceedings.

The Presidency said neither von Batten nor Atiku Abubakar is a party to the case, while accusing recent public commentary by von Batten of inaccurately portraying their role in the litigation.

“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court,” Onanuga stated.

“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 Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between the contents of the court proceedings and political claims surrounding the case.

It maintained that the litigation does not amount to a criminal charge, criminal trial or judicial finding against Tinubu, insisting that the outstanding issue before the US court is whether the FBI and DEA’s redactions comply with American law.

SOURCE: SAHARA REPORTERS