The Presidency rejected allegations that President Bola Tinubu is currently on trial for a crime in the United States, clarifying that the proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia constitute a civil dispute over access to records held by American law enforcement agencies.
It affirmed that President Tinubu faces no criminal charges nor has he been found guilty of any misconduct by the federal court in the matter.
Addressing the controversy surrounding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, explained that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had released 399 pages of records, with specific portions redacted in accordance with statutory exemptions under U.S. law.
The Presidency maintained that recent media reports and public discussions have misconstrued the actual context of the court proceedings.
It highlighted a official communication dated February 4, 2003, from the U.S. Consulate in Lagos to former Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun, which confirmed that then-Lagos State Governor Bola Tinubu had no criminal arrest history, pending warrants, or wanted status in the United States.
The current legal suit stems from a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan across multiple U.S. federal agencies to obtain files pertaining to Tinubu.
Furthermore, the Presidency alleged that Greenspan acted in coordination with Nigerian opposition elements, specifically identifying former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and investigative journalist David Hundeyin as collaborators in the FOIA effort.
Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023, following decisions by several federal agencies to withhold records or refuse to confirm or deny their existence.
Backstory…
The Presidency noted that several U.S. agencies invoked the “Glomar response,” a legal doctrine permitting an authority to neither confirm nor deny the existence of requested files if disclosure could compromise ongoing law enforcement operations, confidential sources, tactics, or personnel safety.
Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service, while leaving matters involving the FBI and DEA for separate determination.
The FBI and DEA subsequently released 399 pages of documentation, though specific portions were withheld or redacted under statutory exemptions provided by U.S. law.
While the agencies, through the US Department of Justice, maintained that some information enjoyed legal protection, Greenspan challenged the redactions and demanded the release of the records without deletions.
According to the presidency, the exemptions covered grand jury proceedings, court orders authorising pen registers or trap-and-trace devices, attorney-client confidentiality and attorney work-product protections.
The exemptions also covered personal information, sensitive sources, and investigative and law enforcement techniques.
Through his lawyers, Tinubu also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.
Greenspan deadline
While the FBI, DEA and intervenor are expected to respond by September 18 to any additional filings from the plaintiff, Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to respond to submissions from the defendants and Tinubu as intervenor.
The presidency said Judge Beryl A. Howell would determine the case based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented in court.
It also rejected claims that Karl Von Batten or Atiku had any official involvement in the proceedings.
The presidency maintained that the question of whether the FBI and DEA could legally redact parts of the documents they had already released remained unresolved.
Meanwhile, Tinubu has welcomed the African Credit Rating Agency’s (AfCRA) planned October 7 launch, saying it would strengthen Africa’s push for fairer credit assessments.
“Africa is not asking for favourable ratings. We are asking for fair ratings, grounded in our fundamentals and in the reforms our economies are actually carrying out,” he said.
Tinubu, however, said AfCRA must earn the confidence of international investors through independence and rigorous assessment.
“AfCRA must now earn the confidence of global capital. That confidence will rest on its independence and the rigour of its work,” he said.
Read Also: FBI Court Filing Confirms Investigation Into Tinubu Over Drug Trafficking Allegations
