The Presidency has explained why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is opposing the release of unredacted records relating to him held by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Presidency said the ongoing legal battle in a United States court is not a criminal case against Tinubu, but a civil dispute over access to government records under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the clarification on Thursday while reacting to what he described as speculative reports and political commentary surrounding the case.
According to Onanuga, the matter is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and concerns whether certain portions of records already released by the FBI and DEA should remain redacted.
“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 Presidency said.
How the US records controversy started
The Presidency said the case dates back to 2022, when American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to 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 commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
Tinubu was subsequently allowed to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The Presidency said the court later granted summary judgment in favour of several US agencies, including the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the proceedings.
However, issues concerning the FBI and DEA remained before the court.
FBI, DEA release 399 pages
According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA eventually produced 399 pages of records, but with portions redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
Greenspan subsequently challenged the redactions and sought access to the unredacted documents.
The US agencies opposed the request, arguing that some of the information was legally protected from public disclosure.
The exemptions cited include protections covering grand jury proceedings, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
Why Tinubu is opposing full disclosure
The Presidency said Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, has also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protection for personal information contained in law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The President’s legal position, therefore, is that the records should not simply be released in unredacted form because they contain information protected under US privacy and law-enforcement provisions.
The Presidency also argued that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
It said the central issue before the court is whether the FBI and DEA acted lawfully in redacting portions of the documents.
Presidency: US court, not Atiku, will decide
The Presidency further rejected suggestions that former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar or any Nigerian political figure would determine the fate of the records.
Onanuga said the matter rests exclusively with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Beryl A. Howell is presiding over the case.
He maintained that the judge would determine the matter based on the evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties.
The Presidency also disputed recent commentary by Karl von Batten, saying neither he nor his client is a party to the proceedings.
What happens next?
The legal battle is still ongoing.
The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President, as intervenor, have until September 18, 2026, to respond.
The court will ultimately determine whether the disputed redactions and withholdings are permissible under US law.
The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political interpretations of the case.
It reiterated that the proceedings do not amount to a criminal charge, criminal trial or judicial finding against President Tinubu.
The controversy, however, is expected to remain a major political issue as pressure continues for the release of the remaining unredacted US records.
