Presidency Explains Why Tinubu Opposes Release Of Unredacted U.S. Records

Presidency Explains Why Tinubu Opposes Release of Unredacted U.S. Records The Presidency has broken its silence on the ongoing litigation over President Bola Tinubu’s historical records in the United States, explaining why the President is opposing the release of unredacted documents held by U.S. law enforcement agencies. The Presidency said the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil Freedom of Information Act FOIA dispute, not a criminal case against Tinubu. President Tinubu is currently on a three-week vacation in Europe. In a statement issued by presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said neither the U.S. court nor any American government agency has found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the case. According to the Presidency, the dispute began in 2022 when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several U.S. government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain documents existed, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023. The Presidency said the court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor. The Presidency explained that the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration DEA have relied on exemptions under U.S. law to oppose the release of portions of the records. The agencies cited protections covering grand jury proceedings, sensitive law-enforcement information, confidential sources, investigative techniques, attorney-client communications and personal privacy. The agencies also invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence,” which allows a U.S. government agency in certain circumstances to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records where doing so could expose protected information. The Presidency said this defence is routinely used by U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to protect investigative sources, methods and other sensitive information. According to the statement, the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service have already secured summary judgment and were removed from the proceedings. The remaining aspects of the litigation concern the FBI and DEA. The Presidency said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, have released 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions provided by U.S. law. The plaintiff has challenged the agencies’ decision to withhold portions of the documents and is seeking access to the unredacted material. The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7C, which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. It stressed that the President’s participation in the case is based on his legal rights and does not amount to an admission of criminal wrongdoing. The Presidency also pushed back against claims by opposition figures that the litigation amounts to evidence that the U.S. government possesses criminal records against Tinubu. Onanuga said the matter relates to the civil forfeiture of funds by Tinubu to the U.S. government in 1993, when he was being investigated over alleged drug-related offences. The Presidency noted that the incident occurred six years before Tinubu became governor of Lagos State. It also recalled that the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State. The development has also intensified the political battle between Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar ahead of the 2027 presidential election. The Presidency said Atiku and U.S.-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten have continued to call for the release of records they claim relate to alleged drug trafficking and money laundering investigations involving Tinubu. The Presidency, however, stressed that neither Atiku nor Von Batten is a party to the FOIA litigation. It said the decision on whether the disputed records should be released rests with the U.S. court and must be based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties. Von Batten has also intensified his campaign for the release of the records, claiming that FBI court filings refer to sensitive wiretap material. According to The Guardian, Atiku hired Von Batten’s Washington-based firm in March for $1.2 million for a 12-month period to lobby for the release of Tinubu-related records. The Presidency said the legal process is continuing, with the plaintiff expected to file an opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and intervenor by September 11, 2026. The FBI, DEA and intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond. The Presidency cautioned the Nigerian public and media against treating the release or withholding of records under FOIA as proof of criminal liability. It reiterated that the court has yet to determine whether the disputed redactions are lawful. The controversy has also triggered concern over its impact on Nigeria’s international reputation. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, National Leader of the Peoples Redemption Party PRP, said the prolonged dispute involving Tinubu, Atiku and the U.S. records had done considerable damage to Nigeria’s image. Deputy spokesperson of the House of Representatives, Philip Agbese, similarly criticised the internationalisation of the political dispute, warning that repeated allegations about Nigeria’s leadership could have consequences for Nigerians seeking education, employment, investment and business opportunities abroad. Agbese said political disagreements should not be allowed to damage the collective interests and reputation of Nigerians. The Presidency has therefore urged the public to distinguish between the ongoing legal dispute over access to government records and claims of criminal liability, stressing that the U.S. court will ultimately determine the fate of the disputed documents.