The presidency has clarified that President Bola Tinubu is not facing criminal charges in the United States, describing the ongoing proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as a civil dispute over access to government records under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The clarification was contained in a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, on Thursday, September 3, 2026.
Onanuga stressed that the case, which arose from FOIA requests seeking records relating to Tinubu, does not constitute a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against the President.
“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,” he said.
According to the presidency, the matter dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.
He noted that the agencies either withheld some of the requested records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, prompting Greenspan to commence Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The presidency explained that, during the proceedings, the defendants invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that permits US government agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of particular records or investigations.
Following the invocation of the defence, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case concern records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Onanuga said that the FBI and DEA, in compliance with the court’s orders, produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.
He explained that the plaintiff subsequently challenged the agencies’ decisions to withhold portions of the documents, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, maintained that the redactions were lawful.
The agencies relied on several FOIA exemptions, including provisions protecting grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court-authorised pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.
Other exemptions cited relate to attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, law-enforcement records, personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques.
The presidency added that Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects against the disclosure of information that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Onanuga affirmed that the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and the President as intervenor. The FBI, DEA, and the intervenor will then have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
He emphasised that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the presidential aide remarked.
The presidency also cautioned against attempts to portray the litigation as a criminal proceeding involving the President, saying its outcome rests with the US District Court and not political commentary.
It specifically dismissed recent claims by Karl von Batten concerning his alleged centrality to the proceedings, noting that neither he nor his client, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the case.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” Onanuga argued.
The presidency therefore urged the media and the public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and what it described as partisan speculation surrounding the case.
