US COURT, NOT ATIKU, WILL DECIDE FATE OF TINUBU’S RECORDS — PRESIDENCY

• FOIA case is civil, not criminal, says Presidency
• FBI, DEA cite legal exemptions for withholding portions of records
• Court fixes September 11 for plaintiff’s response

BY FRONTLINE REPORTERS

The Presidency has clarified that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia—not former Vice President Atiku Abubakar or his associates—will ultimately determine whether records relating to President Bola Tinubu are released or withheld in the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case.

The Presidency also stressed that the proceedings are a civil records-disclosure dispute, not a criminal prosecution, insisting that the withholding or release of government records under the FOIA does not, in itself, establish criminal liability or imply that President Tinubu has been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

In a statement issued Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the case is before Judge Beryl A. Howell, who will determine its outcome based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments presented by the parties—not the demands of Atiku or his alleged agent, lobbyist Ikemefuna Okeke Von Batten.

The Presidency traced the dispute to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests to several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023. The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate as an intervenor.

According to the Presidency, US agencies invoked the “Glomar defence,” a legal position that permits law-enforcement agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records. The defence, it said, is designed to protect government personnel, confidential sources and investigative methods.

The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, effectively removing them from the proceedings. The remaining issues involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are still before the court.

The Presidency said that, in compliance with court orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted under exemptions contained in US law. Greenspan subsequently challenged the redactions, while the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the demand for unrestricted disclosure.

Explaining the basis for the redactions, the Presidency said some records are protected by law, including grand-jury materials and certain information covered by the Pen Register Act. Other documents, it said, are protected by attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges or contain information prepared for law-enforcement purposes.

The agencies also argued that disclosure of some materials could result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, expose confidential sources or reveal investigative techniques. The Presidency added that Tinubu, acting on legal advice, had asserted his rights under the relevant FOIA privacy exemption.

The development comes amid renewed demands by Atiku and others for the release of records allegedly relating to drug-trafficking investigations involving Tinubu. Atiku has argued that claims of potential danger to individuals should not be used to prevent public scrutiny of records that may be subject to disclosure.

Pythrocin distributed by Pinnacle Health Pharmaceuticals Ltd

The FBI, however, recently asked the court to allow it to submit ex parte, in-camera declarations explaining why certain records could not be publicly disclosed, arguing that it could not reveal all the reasons for withholding the information in an open filing.

The Presidency maintained that the existence of the FOIA litigation should not be interpreted as proof of criminal wrongdoing, stressing that the court—not political actors—will determine what records, if any, are legally required to be released.

The plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file an opposition and reply to the processes submitted by the defendants and intervenor, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond.