President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is facing renewed legal scrutiny in the United States, where an ongoing civil Freedom of Information Act dispute involving transparency campaigner Aaron Greenspan is before a federal judge.
The Legal Battle and the Glomar Defence
The current legal dispute stems from requests filed under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by transparency campaigner Aaron Greenspan seeking records relating to Tinubu. Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023, after several United States government agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny their existence. The court subsequently allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
In response to the litigation, United States government agencies invoked the Glomar defence
, a legal position allowing agencies in certain circumstances to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigative records to protect law enforcement personnel, confidential sources, and investigative techniques. Summary judgment was subsequently granted in favor of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service, removing them from the proceedings.
The remaining aspects of the case involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The case is before Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Presidency Clarifies the Scope of the Dispute
The Presidency issued a statement addressing the renewed public debate, emphasizing that the litigation is a civil dispute over access to government records rather than a criminal prosecution. The administration stressed that neither the court nor any United States government agency has found the Nigerian leader guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA.”
The Presidency
The Presidency emphasized that the release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability
.
Distinguishing General FBI Files from Criminal Records
Amid political commentary surrounding the records, Nigeria’s ambassador-designate to Mexico, Reno Omokri, dismissed claims that the bureau holds criminal files against the president during a podcast appearance in Abuja. Omokri argued that the public is frequently misled into believing that the presence of an individual’s name in federal databases equates to a criminal conviction.
Omokri stated that people need to understand that a record and a criminal record are two different things, and that the FBI check conducted after a request from Nigerian authorities returned negative results for any criminal arrests, warrants or wanted status against President Tinubu.
Omokri explained that many people may have records because they have applied for visas, undergone background checks, or had other interactions that required FBI checks resulting from mandatory background screenings. Consequently, he stressed that the public must understand the difference between an FBI record and a criminal conviction.
Historical Clearances and Past US Embassy Inquiries
Defenders of the administration have pointed to prior diplomatic correspondence to refute allegations of past criminality. According to the Presidency, on February 4, 2003, the American Consulate in Lagos wrote to then-Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun regarding Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
The American Consulate responded stating that a records check conducted through the National Crime Information Center returned a negative result for criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants concerning Tinubu. This historical clearance aligns with findings from Omokri’s own independent investigation in September 2022, when he traveled to Chicago prior to the 2023 presidential election. While Omokri mentioned examining certified true copies of documents relating to a civil forfeiture case, the legal question before Judge Howell remains strictly confined to whether agency redactions under FOIA comply with United States law.
