The Presidency has explained why President Bola Tinubu opposes the release of unredacted US records concerning him, saying the dispute is a civil case involving lawful exemptions under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Presidency said the matter does not amount to a criminal case against the Nigerian president and that neither a US court nor any government agency has found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in connection with the records.
In a statement issued amid renewed public debate, the Presidency said the litigation before the US District Court for the District of Columbia centres on access to government records.
The dispute dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.
After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court later allowed Tinubu to participate in the case as an intervenor.
The Presidency also referred to a February 4, 2003 letter from the US Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun. According to the Presidency, the letter stated that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
Why Tinubu is opposing the release
According to the Presidency, US agencies relied on a legal position known as the “Glomar defence”, which allows government agencies in certain circumstances to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records.
The Presidency said the defence is designed, among other purposes, to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
It added that the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing those agencies from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case concern the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA have already released 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, although portions of the documents were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Greenspan has challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the records.
The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, have opposed the demand for the unredacted documents on several legal grounds.
These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3.
Other exemptions cited include attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, law-enforcement records, personal privacy protections and provisions designed to protect confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques.
The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.
It stressed that Tinubu’s opposition to the release of the unredacted records should not be interpreted as an admission of criminal wrongdoing.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said.
It added that the central issue before the court is whether the agencies’ redactions comply with US law.
Read Also:https://e247mag.com/tinubu-drug-trafficking-investigation-fbi/
What happens next in the case?
The Presidency disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu.
The FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18 to respond.
The case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the dispute based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency also rejected recent claims by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten concerning the litigation, saying neither Von Batten nor his client, Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
It accused Von Batten of inaccurately presenting himself and his client as central figures in the proceedings.
The Presidency urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.