US Court Case Is Civil, Not Criminal: Presidency Clarifies Tinubu FOIA Dispute

US Court Case Is Civil, Not Criminal: Presidency Clarifies Tinubu FOIA Dispute

​The Presidency has moved to correct speculative reports surrounding an ongoing legal dispute in the United States, emphasizing that the proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia are strictly a civil records-disclosure matter rather than a criminal trial against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

​In a comprehensive statement issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the government addressed public commentary regarding Civil Action No. 23-1816. Clarifying the nature of the suit, the Presidency noted that neither is the President facing criminal charges, nor has any American court found him guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

​Background and Judicial Trajectory

​The legal battle stems from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted in 2022 by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan—noted for working with Nigerian opposition figures—to several U.S. federal agencies seeking files concerning President Tinubu. When agencies either withheld documents or invoked a neither-confirm-nor-deny policy, Greenspan initiated the lawsuit in 2023. President Tinubu subsequently joined the proceedings as an intervenor.

​The historical context of the records dates back 23 years, following a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then-Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun confirming that an FBI records check yielded no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants against Tinubu during his tenure as Lagos State Governor.

ADVERTISEMENT

​As the current litigation advanced, U.S. law enforcement agencies successfully invoked the standard “Glomar defense,” protecting investigative techniques, sources, and personnel. This led Judge Beryl A. Howell to grant summary judgments dismissing 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) from the suit.

​Redactions and Statutory Exemptions

​With aspects involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remaining, the agencies complied with court directives by producing 399 pages of documents containing redactions. Greenspan subsequently challenged these withholdings, prompting pushback from the U.S. Department of Justice.

​The government defended the redactions under multiple statutory provisions:

• ​Exemption 3: Protects materials shielded by law, such as Grand Jury proceedings and Pen Register Act authorizations.

• ​Exemption 5: Covers attorney-client privileges and attorney work-product, including legal consultations between law enforcement and DOJ attorneys.

• ​Exemptions 6 & 7(C): Safeguard personal privacy to prevent unwarranted invasions. President Tinubu has similarly asserted his personal rights under Exemption 7(C).

• ​Exemptions 7(D) & 7(E): Protect confidential sources and sensitive investigative techniques.

​Upcoming Deadlines and Caution Against Partisan Spin

​The litigation has entered a crucial briefing window under Judge Howell’s supervision. The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file responses to the defense filings, while the FBI, DEA, and President Tinubu as intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to reply.

​The Presidency reiterated that the release or withholding of documents under FOIA does not equate to establishing criminal liability. Dismissing external commentary from political figures and lobbyists—including remarks by Karl von Batten—as attempts to mischaracterize non-parties as central players, the government urged the media and the public to rely strictly on verified court processes rather than politically motivated speculation.