The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the United States is a civil records-disclosure dispute, not a criminal case against the Nigerian president.

The clarification was contained in a statement issued on Thursday by the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga.

Onanuga said recent reports and commentaries had created the impression that Tinubu was facing criminal proceedings in the United States. He stressed that the court had neither charged nor found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

According to him, the case is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and originated from FOIA requests filed in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan, seeking records relating to Tinubu from various U.S. government agencies.

Greenspan later instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 in 2023 after some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence. Tinubu was subsequently allowed to participate in the case as an intervenor.

The Presidency also referenced a 2003 FBI records check, saying the American Consulate in Lagos informed then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun in a February 4, 2003 letter that the check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

Onanuga explained that the U.S. agencies had invoked the “Glomar defence”, which allows law enforcement agencies, under certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of particular records or investigations.

He said the court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.

The remaining claims involve the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The two agencies subsequently produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under various FOIA exemptions.

Greenspan challenged the redactions, while the FBI and DEA, through the U.S. Department of Justice, opposed the request for unrestricted disclosure.

The Presidency said the agencies relied on several FOIA exemptions, including protections for grand jury materials, attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges, personal privacy, confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques.

Onanuga said Tinubu, acting on his lawyers’ advice, also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).

He stressed that the central issue before the court is whether the redactions applied by the FBI and DEA are lawful under U.S. law.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.”

The Presidency said the case remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell, with the plaintiff expected to file opposition and reply to processes by September 11, 2026, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu, as intervenor, have until September 18, 2026, to respond.

The Presidency also dismissed recent comments by Karl von Batten, arguing that neither he nor Atiku Abubakar is a party to the case.

Onanuga urged the media and members of the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and political commentary surrounding the matter.

He reiterated that the litigation concerns access to U.S. government records and the legality of FOIA redactions, rather than a criminal charge, trial or finding against Tinubu.