The Presidency has dismissed reports suggesting that an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case before a United States federal court constitutes a criminal proceeding against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, describing the matter as a civil dispute over access to government records.

In a statement, the Presidency said the case, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, does not involve a criminal charge or finding of criminal wrongdoing against President Tinubu.

The clarification comes amid what the Presidency described as speculative reports and partisan commentary surrounding the litigation.

According to the statement, the matter dates back to 2022 when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu. Following the withholding of some records and the agencies’ refusal in certain instances to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

The court subsequently allowed President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.

The Presidency also recalled that, 23 years ago, the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, outstanding wants or warrants for then-Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

It explained that during the current proceedings, some US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position that allows government agencies in certain circumstances to neither confirm nor deny whether particular records or investigations exist.

The Presidency said the US District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), effectively removing them from the proceedings.

The remaining aspects of the case involve records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, produced 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in US law.

The plaintiff subsequently challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the documents, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the request for disclosure of the unredacted materials.

The Presidency said the agencies relied on several statutory exemptions, including provisions protecting grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court-authorised surveillance; attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges; law-enforcement records; personal privacy; confidential sources; and investigative techniques.

It added that President Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in certain law-enforcement records.

The Presidency said the litigation remains ongoing, with the plaintiff expected to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes by September 11, 2026.

It said the FBI, DEA and the intervenor would have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.

The Presidency stressed that the release, partial release or withholding of records under the US FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the statement said.

It further urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the case.

The Presidency specifically stated that former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and Karl Von Batten, whom it described as a commentator associated with the matter, are not parties to the litigation.

It said the outcome of the case would be determined exclusively by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, based on the evidence, applicable US law and arguments presented by the parties.

“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” the Presidency stated.

It therefore called on the media and members of the public to rely on verified court proceedings and legal records rather than partisan interpretations of the case.