Published by Osasere Edomwonyi Ikpoba
The Presidency has firmly dismissed widespread speculation that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is facing criminal proceedings in the United States, clarifying that the ongoing legal dispute before a federal court in Washington, D.C., is a civil records-disclosure matter under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and not a criminal case against the Nigerian leader. The clarification, contained in a detailed statement issued on Thursday, September 3, 2026, by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, comes amid renewed public attention to historical records held by United States law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
"For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing," the statement read. The Presidency stressed that the court has neither charged nor convicted President Tinubu of any criminal offence, adding that the dispute centres on requests for access to records held by United States government agencies and whether portions of those records can lawfully remain redacted.
The case, identified as Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, originated from FOIA requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan, a researcher whom the Presidency described as known to work with Nigerian opposition figures, including David Hundeyin and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Greenspan sought records relating to President Tinubu from several US government agencies. After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted the civil action in 2023. The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency also drew attention to a historical FBI records check conducted in 2003, noting that the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State. This letter, which has been cited by the Presidency as evidence of the absence of any criminal record against the President, was issued more than two decades ago and has been a recurring reference point in the ongoing legal and political battle over Tinubu's US history.
During the proceedings, the defendants invoked what is known under US law as the "Glomar defence," a legal position that allows US law enforcement agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of particular records or investigations where doing so could reveal protected law enforcement information. The Presidency explained that the defence "simply means the government agency is not 'in a position to deny or admit' the existence of an investigation" and is intended to protect government personnel as well as the techniques and sources used by law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute crimes.
Based on the invocation of this defence, the United States District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), removing those agencies from the proceedings. The remaining aspects of the case involve the FBI and the DEA. The Presidency said that, in compliance with the court's orders, the FBI and DEA released 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law. The plaintiff subsequently challenged the agencies' decisions to withhold portions of the records.
According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, opposed the demand for disclosure of the unredacted documents on several legal grounds. These include protections covering grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court orders authorising the installation and use of pen registers or trap-and-trace devices under FOIA Exemption 3. The agencies also relied on exemptions protecting attorney-client communications and attorney work product, as well as records prepared for law-enforcement purposes. Other exemptions cited relate to the protection of personal privacy, confidential sources, and law-enforcement techniques and procedures. The Presidency added that President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain personal information from disclosure where release could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any further submissions, after which Judge Beryl A. Howell will determine the legality of the disputed redactions.
The historical matters in question stem from a 1993 civil forfeiture case in Chicago involving approximately $460,000 held in an account associated with Tinubu. President Tinubu was not criminally charged in the case and has consistently maintained that the matter was resolved as a non-criminal civil settlement. Court records show that the 1993 forfeiture of $460,000 from bank accounts linked to Tinubu was handled strictly as a civil in rem proceeding rather than a criminal in personam prosecution.
However, the Presidency's clarification has not gone unchallenged. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has continued to press the issue, challenging President Tinubu to address the circumstances surrounding the $460,000 forfeiture and explain why his name appeared in historical US federal narcotics and money-laundering records. Atiku's camp has also questioned the President's refusal to allow the full release of the documents, arguing that Nigerians deserve the truth. The dispute has taken on an increasingly political dimension, with both sides using the issue to position themselves ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
President Tinubu, through his legal team in the United States, has filed a response in the US district court arguing that the records sought by Greenspan are protected under US privacy law. The case stems from FOIA requests filed by Greenspan seeking FBI and DEA files linked to a Chicago drug-involvement investigation from the 1990s. The President's legal team has consistently maintained that the 1993 forfeiture case was civil in nature, and that the proceedings in the District of Columbia are merely a dispute over access to government records, not a criminal trial.
As the legal battle continues in the United States, the political implications in Nigeria are already being felt. The opposition has seized on the issue to question the President's fitness for office, while the Presidency has framed the controversy as a politically motivated campaign by Tinubu's opponents. With the plaintiff's deadline approaching and the court yet to rule on the legality of the redactions, the outcome of the case remains uncertain. For now, however, the Presidency has made its position unmistakably clear: President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not facing criminal prosecution in the United States, and the ongoing FOIA dispute is a civil matter—nothing more, nothing less.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments