Breaking: Presidency reacts as FBI releases its document on investigation of Tinubu
- The Presidency issued a statement clarifying the nature of a Freedom of Information Act case before a US federal court involving President Bola Tinubu
- The FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records with redactions, and the court is yet to rule on whether those redactions are lawful
- The Plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition, with the FBI, DEA and Tinubu's team given until September 18, 2026, to respond
PAY ATTENTION: Mark Legit.ng as a preferred source, and our content will appear higher in your Google feed!
The Presidency has moved to address what it described as speculative media reports surrounding an ongoing civil case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, insisting the proceedings are not a criminal action against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, issued the clarification on September 3, 2026, outlining the origins, current status, and legal framework of the case.
Source: Twitter
Tinubu vs FBI: How the FOIA case began
The case traces back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with several US government agencies, seeking records related to President Tinubu. The Presidency described Greenspan as someone known to work with Nigerian opposition figures, including journalist David Hundeyin and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.
After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Greenspan filed Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023. The court later allowed President Tinubu to join the proceedings as an intervenor.
Several agencies, including the CIA, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service, successfully argued a "Glomar defence" and were removed from the case. This is a standard legal position where a government agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of an investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration remained in the proceedings.
Where the case stands now
In compliance with the court's orders, the FBI and DEA released 399 pages of documents, with portions redacted under US law. Greenspan challenged those redactions, but the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, pushed back, citing five legal grounds: grand jury secrecy rules, attorney-client privilege, law enforcement preparation purposes, personal privacy protections, and the risk of exposing confidential sources or investigative techniques.
President Tinubu has also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protects personal privacy in law enforcement records, on the advice of his legal team.
The next court deadline falls on September 11, 2026, when the Plaintiff must file any opposition. The FBI, DEA, and Tinubu's legal team then have until September 18, 2026, to respond.
The Presidency also addressed recent commentary from Karl von Batten, saying he and his client have no formal standing in the case. "Neither is a party to the case," the statement noted.
The statement pointed out that a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos informed then Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun that an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for Tinubu, who was governor of Lagos State at the time.
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court will determine the outcome of the case based on filings and applicable US law. The Presidency urged journalists and the public to distinguish verified court proceedings from what it called partisan speculation.
See the full statement on X here:
Tinubu tells US court to block FBI
Legit.ng earlier reported that President Bola Tinubu filed a response in a US district court arguing that records sought by a researcher are protected under US privacy law.
The case stems from FOIA requests filed by Aaron Greenspan seeking FBI and DEA files linked to a Chicago drug-involvement investigation from the early 1990s.
Tinubu's lawyers argued that personal curiosity about a foreign leader does not meet the legal threshold for public interest under FOIA.
Source: Legit.ng
