The Presidency has dismissed reports suggesting that an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case involving records on President Bola Tinubu before a United States court constitutes a criminal case against the Nigerian leader.Hire Grant WritersIn a statement on Thursday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency described the matter as a “civil records-disclosure dispute” concerning access to government records under US law.“It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” Onanuga said.The clarification followed what the Presidency described as “recent speculative reports” about the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.According to the statement, the case originated from Freedom of Information Act requests submitted in 2022 by Aaron Greenspan to several US government agencies for records relating to Tinubu.Download Interactive MapsThe Presidency said the requests followed the refusal or inability of the agencies to confirm or deny the existence of some records, prompting Greenspan to institute Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the Washington, D.C. federal court in 2023.It said the court subsequently permitted Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.The statement further explained that the US government agencies invoked what is known as the “Glomar defence”, a legal position under which an agency may decline to confirm or deny whether particular records exist.“It simply means the government agency is not ‘in a position to deny or admit’ the existence of an investigation,” the Presidency explained, adding that the defence protects government personnel, investigative techniques and law-enforcement sources.According to Onanuga, the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.The remaining aspects of the case, according to reports, involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).Hire Grant WritersThe Presidency said the FBI and DEA, in compliance with court orders, had produced 399 pages of records, although portions of the documents were redacted pursuant to exemptions under US law.Greenspan challenged the redactions and sought the release of the documents without the withheld portions.However, the FBI and DEA, through the US Department of Justice, opposed the application, citing several statutory exemptions.Among the reasons given were protections for grand jury proceedings and certain information relating to court-authorised pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.Download Interactive MapsOther grounds included attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, law-enforcement considerations, protection of personal privacy, and the need to protect confidential sources and investigative techniques.The Presidency said Tinubu had also asserted his rights under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protection against certain unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.Onanuga stressed that the release or withholding of records under the FOIA “does not, by itself, establish criminal liability”.“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” he said.The Presidency also disclosed the next procedural deadlines in the case, saying the plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file opposition and replies to the processes filed by the defendants and the President as intervenor.It added that the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18, 2026, to respond to any processes filed by the plaintiff.Onanuga further rejected recent commentary suggesting that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Karl von Batten were central to the proceedings.Hire Grant Writers“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” he said.He added that the outcome would be determined by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia “based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.”The Presidency urged the media and the public to distinguish between the actual court proceedings and what it described as partisan or speculative commentary.“The United States District Court will decide that issue based on the filings and applicable US law, not political commentary,” Onanuga