The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing proceedings before a United States federal court involving records relating to President Bola Tinubu are a civil Freedom of Information Act dispute and not a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the litigation before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerns access to government records and the extent to which the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration may lawfully redact or withhold portions of those records.
“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,” Onanuga said.
The clarification followed renewed controversy over records connected with a United States investigation in the early 1990s and reports suggesting that the FBI had formally acknowledged that Tinubu was among persons investigated in relation to drug-trafficking activities.
The Presidency accused opposition figures and political actors of presenting the ongoing FOIA litigation as though it were a fresh criminal proceeding against Tinubu, insisting that the present case is solely about whether historical government records should be disclosed and, if so, to what extent.
Onanuga said the eventual decision on disclosure rests exclusively with Judge Howell and would be based on the evidence, applicable United States law and submissions made by the parties rather than political commentary.
He also dismissed statements attributed to Washington-based lobbyist Karl von Batten, maintaining that neither Batten nor former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar is a party to the proceedings.
The Presidency further relied on a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun, which it said stated that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants concerning Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
The current litigation originated from a series of Freedom of Information Act requests submitted between 2022 and 2023 by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan and Nigerian journalist David Hundeyin to United States government agencies.
The requests sought records relating to Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele and concerned materials arising from a joint investigation involving the FBI, DEA, Internal Revenue Service and United States Attorneys’ offices in Illinois and Indiana.
Greenspan said the records related to charging decisions connected with the activities of a Chicago heroin-trafficking organisation operating in the early 1990s.
Individuals named in the requests included Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Akande and Agbele.
The federal agencies initially responded by invoking what is known under United States law as a “Glomar response,” under which an agency refuses to confirm or deny the existence of requested records where acknowledging them could itself disclose information protected by law.
Greenspan challenged the agencies’ position before the US Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, but the decision was upheld.
He subsequently filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 on June 12, 2023, against the FBI, DEA, IRS, Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Department of State. The Central Intelligence Agency was later added as a defendant.
The court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the litigation as an intervenor.
As the proceedings progressed, the FBI recently submitted records concerning the 1993 investigation to Judge Howell for private examination.
According to court filings, the documents were submitted on August 28, 2026, “under seal, ex parte, in camera,” pursuant to an August 20 order of the court.
The effect is that the records were delivered directly to the judge for confidential review and were not made available to Greenspan or the general public.
The FBI and DEA have already produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under various exemptions contained in US law. Greenspan is challenging those redactions and seeking wider disclosure.
Tinubu’s lawyers have opposed the unrestricted disclosure of the investigative files, arguing that the requested materials may contain confidential tax information, law-enforcement records and other information protected by United States privacy laws.
His legal team maintains that the President retains a privacy interest in the investigative records notwithstanding the fact that certain information relating to the historical forfeiture proceedings is already in the public domain.
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff,” his lawyers argued.
The wider historical controversy includes the forfeiture of $460,000 by Tinubu to the United States government in 1993 after American authorities linked the funds to proceeds of narcotics trafficking, according to documents referenced in the proceedings.
The current FOIA case, however, is not a prosecution over that forfeiture. It concerns whether investigative materials held by US agencies should be released publicly and whether the exemptions relied upon to redact or withhold information are legally justified.
The FBI and DEA have defended their decision to withhold portions of the records on several legal grounds.
According to the Presidency’s account of the agencies’ position, some documents are protected because they involve grand jury proceedings or information governed by laws concerning pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.
Other materials are said to fall under attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges because they contain communications in which FBI and DEA agents sought or received legal advice from Department of Justice attorneys.
The agencies also rely on exemptions protecting law-enforcement materials, personal privacy, identities of confidential sources and investigative methods and techniques.
Tinubu has separately asserted rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects certain personal information contained in law-enforcement records where disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Presidency said some federal agencies had already succeeded in relying on the Glomar defence during earlier stages of the proceedings.
According to Onanuga, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and IRS, removing them from the remaining dispute while aspects of the case involving the FBI and DEA continued.
The FBI and DEA subsequently produced the 399 pages now at the centre of the dispute over the extent of lawful redactions.
The litigation has now moved to another stage following the private submission of records to Judge Howell.
Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond to whatever processes Greenspan files.
The judge will thereafter determine whether additional information should be released or whether the redactions and withholding decisions made by the agencies are protected under the relevant FOIA exemptions.
Onanuga stressed that the production or release of government records under the Freedom of Information Act does not automatically establish criminal responsibility against the person mentioned in those records.
“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 Presidency said.
He also rejected attempts to portray Atiku or von Batten as central participants in the court battle.
“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court. She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten,” the statement said.
“Recent public commentary by Mr Karl von Batten has inaccurately portrayed him and his client as central to the proceedings. Neither is a party to the case.”
The Presidency maintained that although historical investigative records concerning Tinubu are at issue before the American court, the proceedings themselves do not amount to a criminal charge, criminal trial or judicial finding of guilt against him.
“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,” Onanuga said.
“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary.”
The Presidency consequently urged Nigerian media organisations and members of the public to distinguish between the historical investigative materials being sought through FOIA and the nature of the current civil court proceedings.
“The Presidency therefore urges the media and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan speculation,” it said.
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
