Presidency Breaks Silence On US Court Case Against Tinubu
The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing United States court case involving records linked to President Bola Tinubu is a civil records-disclosure dispute.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the clarification in a statement issued on Thursday.
He said the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerns requests for government records under the US Freedom of Information Act.
According to Onanuga, Aaron Greenspan submitted the requests to several US government agencies in 2022, seeking records relating to Tinubu.
He said the agencies either withheld some records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, prompting Greenspan to file a lawsuit in 2023.
The case, identified as Civil Action No. 23-1816, was filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Onanuga said the court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
During the proceedings, the agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence” under United States law.
He explained that the defence allows government agencies to neither confirm nor deny whether certain investigations or records exist.
According to him, the defence protects government personnel, investigative sources and techniques used by law enforcement agencies.
Onanuga said the court subsequently granted summary judgment to the CIA, EOUSA, State Department, Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service.
He said those agencies were consequently removed from the proceedings, leaving claims involving the FBI and DEA for further consideration.
The FBI and DEA later released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions provided by US law.
Onanuga said the plaintiff challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold parts of the documents.
He said the agencies argued that some records were protected by law, including grand jury materials and information covered by the Pen Register Act.
Other exemptions cited included attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product protection, personal privacy and confidential-source information.
The agencies also relied on exemptions covering law-enforcement records and investigative techniques, according to the Presidency.
Onanuga said Tinubu, acting on legal advice, had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
He stressed that 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,” Onanuga said.
He said the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply to processes submitted by the defendants and Tinubu.
The FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.
Onanuga said the outcome would be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties.
He also dismissed claims that Nigerian opposition figures or their associates were central to the proceedings.
Onanuga specifically said Karl Von Batten and his client were not parties to the case, despite recent public commentary about their involvement.
The Presidency urged the media and public to distinguish the actual court proceedings from political claims and speculation.
It maintained that the case does not amount to a criminal charge, trial or judicial finding against Tinubu.
According to the Presidency, the outstanding issue before the court is whether the redactions made by the FBI and DEA are lawful.
Leave a comment