Presidency Clarifies Tinubu’s US FOIA Lawsuit Is a Civil Records Dispute, Not a Criminal Case
The Nigerian Presidency has moved to clarify that an ongoing court case in the United States involving President Bola Tinubu is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal matter, accusing opposition figures of deliberately mischaracterising the proceedings to suggest that the President is facing criminal prosecution.
In a statement issued on Thursday, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the case does not amount to a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against Tinubu, stressing that the court has not found the President guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. According to Onanuga, the matter is strictly a civil dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), centred on the possible release of government records, and is unrelated to Tinubu’s official conduct as Nigeria’s president.
Providing background on the case, Onanuga explained that it stems from FOIA requests submitted between 2022 and 2023 by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, founder of the organisation PlainSite, who sought records relating to Tinubu from several US federal agencies. After the agencies either withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan initiated Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023, with the court subsequently permitting Tinubu to join the proceedings as an intervenor.
During the proceedings, Onanuga said the concerned government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence,” a standard position used at times by US law enforcement agencies where an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of an investigation, in order to protect personnel, sources, and investigative techniques. He noted that the case is being handled exclusively by the presiding judge, who will determine which records, if any, can be released based on the evidence, applicable law, and arguments presented by the parties involved, rather than by political actors.
The underlying dispute traces back to a civil forfeiture matter in 1993, when Tinubu forfeited approximately $460,000 to the US government amid an investigation into drug-related offences, six years before he became governor of Lagos State. Onanuga cited a February 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check at the time found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants against Tinubu. The Presidency also disclosed that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration had released 399 pages of documents in connection with the case, though with certain redactions.
The 1993 forfeiture episode has remained a recurring feature of Nigerian political discourse since Tinubu’s emergence on the national stage, having previously featured prominently during the legal challenges to his declared victory in the 2023 presidential election. In that case, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal held that the forfeiture order against Tinubu was civil rather than criminal in nature, and that he was neither arraigned nor convicted of any offence in the United States, a position the Presidency reiterated in its latest statement, describing the country’s courts and previous US disclosures as having already addressed the matter.
The Presidency’s intervention comes as scrutiny of the case has resurfaced amid heightened political activity ahead of the 2027 general election, with opposition figures continuing to press the administration for further clarity on the details surrounding the decades-old forfeiture as political positioning intensifies across the country.
About the Author
