Presidency Clarifies U.S FOIA Lawsuit:”It Is A Civil Records Case, Not A Criminal Trial Against Tinubu”
ABUJA — The Presidency has strongly pushed back against what it describes as speculative media reports regarding a legal case in Washington, D.C., clarifying that the matter is strictly a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal trial against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
In a comprehensive statement released on Thursday, September 3, 2026, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, emphasized that the U.S. court has not found President Tinubu guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
“For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” Onanuga stated. “It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.”
Case Background and Summary Judgments
The dispute originates from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan, who sought records relating to President Tinubu from various U.S. agencies. When the agencies withheld some information, Greenspan filed a lawsuit (Civil Action No. 23-1816) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. President Tinubu was later permitted to join the suit as an intervenor to protect his privacy rights.
The Presidency revealed that the U.S. District Court has already granted summary judgment in favor of several agencies—including the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, and the IRS—removing them from the case. The court sustained their use of the standard “Glomar defense,” a legal mechanism allowing agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain files to protect sensitive investigative protocols.
Battle Over Redacted Documents
The remaining aspects of the lawsuit involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In compliance with previous court directives, these two agencies produced 399 pages of records. However, significant portions were blacked out under standard legal exemptions.
According to the Statehouse statement, the U.S. Department of Justice (USDoJ), representing the FBI and DEA, is actively resisting the plaintiff’s demands to lift these redactions. The government cited several strict legal protections, including:
Grand Jury Privacy: Legal protections under FOIA Exemption 3 that hide Grand Jury proceedings and details from the Pen Register Act.
Privileged Communications: FOIA Exemption 5 protections covering attorney-client privileges between federal agents and USDoJ attorneys.
Personal Privacy: Exemptions 6 and 7(C) aimed at preventing an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Source Protection: Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) to safeguard the identities of confidential law enforcement sources and tactical investigative techniques.
President Tinubu’s legal team has similarly asserted his statutory rights to personal privacy under these provisions.
Next Steps and Media Warning
The presidency noted that the legal timeline extends into mid-September. The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition to the redactions, while the FBI, DEA, and President Tinubu’s legal team have until September 18, 2026, to file their final responses.
Dismissing recent public commentary by opposition figures and external actors, the Presidency reminded the public that the case is solely under the jurisdiction of Judge Beryl A. Howell.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” Onanuga concluded, urging the Nigerian media and general public to rely on verified court procedures rather than partisan speculation.
