Aniefiok Christopher
The ongoing US court case involving President Bola Tinubu is a civil, and not a criminal matter, the Presidency says.
Presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga described the matter as a “civil records-disclosure dispute” under the US FOIA, saying no court had found Mr Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
Onanuga said the case, filed by American transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, does not amount to a criminal trial and has not produced any finding of wrongdoing against Tinubu.
Also read
- Senate approves President Tinubu’s $6b loan request
- President Tinubu unashamedly Restores Fuel subsidy
- President Tinubu gives assent to student loan bill
Recall that the dispute centres partly on the forfeiture of $460,000 by Mr Tinubu to the US government in 1993 after American authorities linked the funds to proceeds of narcotics trafficking, according to the documents cited in the draft.
“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.
Giving a background to the matter, Onanuga said the case, which comes 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
”In 2022, Mr Aaron Greenspan, who is known to work with Nigerian opposition figures including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar, submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
”After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Mr Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.”
He noted that the court subsequently permitted Tinubu to join the proceedings as an intervenor.
The presidential aide said the Central Intelligence Agency, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service had since been removed from the case after the court granted them summary judgment on the “Glomar defence” – a standard defence in which an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of records.
He said the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, however, remain in the suit and have produced 399 pages of records, some of which were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Onanuga listed the grounds for the redactions to include grand jury secrecy rules, attorney-client privilege, law enforcement sensitivity, personal privacy and the protection of confidential informants and investigative techniques.
The statement read, “Some of the documents are protected from being revealed to the public by law, for example, Grand Jury proceedings. The law exempts transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings from public disclosure.
”The Pen Register Act also protects from disclosure information about certain court order(s) authorising or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device. (FOIA Exemption 3).
“Some of the documents fall squarely within the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges. Some documents contain instances where FBI and DEA agents sought and/or received legal advice from USDoJ attorneys. (FOIA Exemption 5).
“Some of the documents were prepared for law enforcement purposes. (FOIA Exemption 5).
“Some of the documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)).
“Some of the documents, if disclosed, will reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise the techniques that law enforcement agencies use in investigating crimes. (FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E)).”
He said Tinubu had also invoked his privacy rights under a FOIA exemption in the case.
According to the statement, Greenspan has until September 11 to respond to the defendants’ and intervenor’s filings, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond further.
Onanuga also faulted recent commentary by Karl von Batten, saying neither he nor his client is a party to the suit.
“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,” he said.
He urged the media to distinguish “verified court proceedings from partisan speculation.”
The case stems from 12 FOIA requests filed between 2022 and 2023 by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, founder of the legal-records website PlainSite, seeking records from six US federal agencies on a Chicago heroin-trafficking investigation from the early 1990s that named Tinubu alongside three others – Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.
After the agencies initially issued “Glomar” responses – neither confirming nor denying the records existed – Greenspan sued in June 2023, and Judge Beryl Howell ruled in April 2025 that such refusals were “neither logical nor plausible,” ordering the FBI and DEA to process the records; Tinubu was later allowed to join the suit as an intervenor to protect his privacy interests.
Background
