The Presidency has clarified that the Tinubu FOIA case currently before a United States federal court is a civil dispute concerning access to government records and does not amount to a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the clarification in a statement issued on September 3, 2026, following renewed reports and commentary about the proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the Presidency, the case, filed under the US Freedom of Information Act, concerns requests for records held by American government agencies and the legal basis for withholding or redacting some of those records.
The case, known as Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, is Civil Action No. 23-1816 and is being handled by Judge Beryl A. Howell. Court records show that Aaron Greenspan filed multiple FOIA requests in 2022 seeking records relating to Tinubu and other individuals.
The Presidency said Greenspan subsequently commenced the federal lawsuit in 2023 after some US agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed. Tinubu was later allowed to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
What the Presidency said about the records
Onanuga said several agencies were initially involved in the litigation, but subsequent court proceedings left the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration as the agencies with remaining issues under consideration.
The FBI and DEA have produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US law. The plaintiff has challenged some of those redactions.
The Presidency said the agencies relied on a number of FOIA exemptions to justify withholding or redacting portions of the documents.
These include protections covering grand jury material and other information protected by law, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
US court records also show that the litigation has involved disputes over the agencies’ use of the so-called “Glomar” response, which allows an agency in certain circumstances to decline to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records.
Read Also:https://e247mag.com/tinubu-drug-trafficking-investigation-fbi/
Presidency recalls 2003 FBI records check
The Presidency also referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun.
According to the letter, an FBI records check conducted in response to a Nigerian police inquiry found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants associated with Tinubu based on the information supplied at the time. Contemporary reporting also documented the contents of the letter.
However, the letter has recently become part of renewed public debate, with a US lobbying firm questioning aspects of its authenticity. That disagreement is separate from the legal question currently before the US court.
Case remains before US court
The Presidency stressed that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
It said the outstanding issue concerns whether the FBI and DEA can lawfully maintain the redactions they have made to documents already produced.
According to the statement, Greenspan had until September 11, 2026, to respond to filings by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu’s legal team had until September 18 to respond to any filings from the plaintiff.
The Tinubu FOIA case therefore remains a records-disclosure dispute before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, with the court expected to determine the outstanding issues based on the applicable law, evidence and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish the court proceedings from political commentary surrounding the case.