The Presidency has explained why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is opposing the release of unredacted records held by United States law enforcement agencies, saying the matter involves lawful exemptions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and does not amount to a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.
The Presidency, in a statement issued amid renewed public debate over the matter, said the ongoing litigation before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a civil dispute over access to government records.
It stressed that neither the court nor any US government agency has found Tinubu guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the case.
It emphasised that the President’s position should not be interpreted as an admission of criminal wrongdoing.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said, stressing that the central issue before the court is whether the agencies’ redactions comply with US law.
The Presidency further disclosed that Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to the processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18 to respond.
It said the case remains under the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who will determine the dispute based on the evidence, applicable law and arguments of the parties.
The Presidency also dismissed recent commentary by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten, alleging that neither Von Batten nor his client, Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the litigation.
It accused Von Batten of inaccurately portraying himself and his client as central figures in the proceedings.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” the Presidency said.
It urged Nigerian media organisations and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary surrounding the case.
