ABUJA, Nigeria – The Presidency has issued a comprehensive clarification regarding the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, affirming that the proceedings constitute a routine civil public-records dispute rather than a criminal trial or investigation into President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the State House announced on Thursday, September 3, 2026.
In an official statement signed by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency moved to dispel what it described as speculative and politically motivated narratives circulating across domestic and international media spaces.
Okay News reports that the clarification comes amid heightened commentary following disclosures in Civil Action No. 23-1816, a lawsuit initiated by American researcher Aaron Greenspan against multiple United States federal agencies seeking archival intelligence dossiers relating to the Nigerian leader.
Tracing the background of the controversy, the Presidency recalled that 23 years ago, on February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos formally communicated to Nigeria’s then-Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, confirming that a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records check returned negative for any criminal arrest warrants, wants, or convictions concerning then-Governor Tinubu.
According to Onanuga, Greenspan—whom the Presidency noted has collaborated with Nigerian opposition figures, including investigative writer David Hundeyin and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar—submitted extensive FOIA requests in 2022 to several U.S. departments before filing a civil lawsuit in 2023 when the agencies declined to confirm or release certain files.
President Tinubu subsequently applied for and was granted leave by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor to protect his statutory privacy rights.
The Presidency explained that during the preliminary proceedings, several defendant agencies asserted the standard “Glomar defense”—a legal doctrine permitting intelligence organs to neither confirm nor deny the existence of sensitive operational records in order to protect intelligence-gathering sources and techniques.
On the strength of that defense, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment terminating proceedings against 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), leaving claims concerning the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for substantive adjudication.
In compliance with subsequent directives issued by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell, the FBI and DEA released 399 pages of records, applying statutory redactions permitted under United States federal transparency laws.
Addressing the controversy surrounding the redacted portions, the Presidency highlighted that the United States Department of Justice (USDoJ), acting on behalf of the FBI and DEA, defended the redactions under established statutory exemptions.
These include FOIA Exemption 3, which legally protects grand jury transcripts and telecommunications intercept authorizations under the Pen Register Act; Exemption 5, which shields internal attorney-work product, legal advice rendered by USDoJ attorneys, and documents prepared for law enforcement purposes; Exemptions 6 and 7(C), which prohibit unwarranted invasions of personal privacy; and Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E), which safeguard the identities of confidential human sources and protect investigative law-enforcement techniques.
The statement noted that President Tinubu’s legal representatives equally invoked his personal privacy guarantees under Exemption 7(C) to prevent the unredacted publication of private records.
Setting out the immediate judicial calendar, the Presidency disclosed that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition to the filings submitted by the federal agencies and the intervenor, while the FBI, the DEA, and President Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to file their final replies.
Onanuga firmly dismissed recent public statements by Washington lobbyist Karl von Batten of Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., cautioning the Nigerian public that neither von Batten nor his principal, Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the court case.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” Onanuga stated. “The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu. The FBI and DEA have produced records with redactions, and the remaining question is whether those redactions are lawful.”
The Presidency urged news organizations and civic commentators to adhere strictly to verified court filings and recognize that the determination of the lawsuit rests solely upon the judicial discretion of Judge Howell under United States law, rather than partisan narratives.
