US FOIA records case involving Tinubu is civil, not criminal — Presidency

US FOIA records case involving Tinubu is civil, not criminal — Presidency

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

The clarification is contained in a statement issued by Presidential Spokesperson, Mr Bayo Onanuga, on Thursday in Abuja, against what the Presidency described as speculative reports.

“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 Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.”

The Presidency said the matter dated back to 2022, when Mr Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

It said after some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

The court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, while the defendants invoked the “Glomar defence”, a mechanism used by U.S. agencies in certain records-disclosure cases.

According to the Presidency, the defence means that a government agency is not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, thereby protecting law-enforcement personnel, sources and investigative techniques.

It said the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.

The Presidency said the remaining aspects of the claims involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerned the redaction of records produced during the proceedings.

“In compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law.”

It said the FBI and DEA, through the U.S. Department of Justice, opposed demands for the release of the records without redactions.

The Presidency said the agencies relied on statutory exemptions covering grand jury proceedings, pen-register information, attorney-client privilege, attorney work product and law-enforcement materials.

It added that other exemptions protected personal privacy, confidential sources and investigative techniques from disclosure.

It noted that Tinubu, on the advice of his lawyers, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), relating to protection against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

The Presidency said the plaintiff had until Sept. 11 to file any opposition and reply to the defendants’ and intervenor’s processes, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu had until Sept. 18 to respond.

“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.”

It also recalled that, in a Feb. 4, 2003 letter, the American Consulate in Lagos informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, then governor of Lagos State.

The Presidency urged the Nigerian media and public to distinguish verified court proceedings from partisan commentary, stressing that the case remained under the control of Judge Beryl Howell.

“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu.”

It said the court would determine whether the redactions were lawful based on the filings, evidence and applicable U.S. law, rather than political commentary.