The Presidency has clarified that the ongoing Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, litigation involving President Bola Tinubu before a United States federal court is a civil records-disclosure dispute and not a criminal case against the President.
It said: “For clarity, the matter is a civil records-disclosure dispute under the United States Freedom of Information Act. It is not a criminal case against President Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.”
The Presidency in a statement by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga stated that the matter came up 23 years after the American Consulate in Lagos, in a letter dated February 4, 2003, informed the then Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tafa Balogun, that a Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, records check found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for then-Governor Bola Tinubu.
According to the statement: “In 2022, Mr. Aaron Greenspan, who is known to work with Nigerian opposition figures including David Hundeyin and Atiku Abubakar, submitted FOIA requests to several United States government agencies seeking records relating to President Tinubu.
“After the agencies withheld certain records or declined to confirm or deny their existence, Mr. Greenspan commenced Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.
“The court subsequently permitted President Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
“During the proceedings, the defendants asserted the “Glomar defence,” a standard defence that US law enforcement agencies invoke from time to time. It simply means the government agency is not “in a position to deny or admit” the existence of an investigation.
“It protects government personnel and the techniques and sources law enforcement agencies use to investigate and prosecute crimes.
“Based on the invocation of this defence, the US District Court granted summary judgment in favour of the CIA, EOUSA, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, IRS.
“It ruled that they be removed from the proceedings, leaving aspects of the claims involving the FBIand the Drug Enforcement Administration for further consideration.
“In compliance with the court’s orders, the FBI and DEA produced 399 pages of records, with portions redacted under exemptions provided by United States law. The plaintiff challenged the FBI and DEA’s decisions to redact portions of the documents produced.
“The FBI and DEA, through the United States Department of Justice, USDoJ, pushed back against the plaintiff’s requests. The FBI and DEA rejected the application to produce the documents without redactions for the following reasons:
“Some of the documents are protected from being revealed to the public by law, for example, Grand Jury proceedings. The law exempts transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings from public disclosure.”
It further said: “The Pen Register Act also protects from disclosure information about certain court order(s) authorising or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device.
“Some of the documents fall squarely within the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges. Some documents contain instances where FBI and DEA agents sought and/or received legal advice from USDoJ attorneys”. (Vanguard)
