The Presidency has moved to correct what it described as misleading interpretations of an ongoing legal battle in the United States involving records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, stressing that the matter is a civil dispute over access to government documents and not a criminal trial.

Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the clarification in a statement on Thursday following renewed public discussion about the case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to Onanuga, the litigation was brought under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law that allows members of the public to request records held by federal agencies.

He said the case dates back to 2022, when Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests with several US government agencies seeking records relating to Tinubu.

The agencies initially withheld some of the requested information or declined to confirm or deny whether certain records existed. The refusal eventually led to the civil litigation.

The Presidency stressed that neither the filing of the case nor the disclosure dispute amounts to a criminal charge against Tinubu.

“It is not a criminal case against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” the Presidency said.

The statement explained that the outstanding issue before the court concerns the legality of redactions made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration in records that have been produced during the proceedings.

The Presidency also noted that the US agencies had previously relied on the “Glomar” response, a legal mechanism that allows an agency, under certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of particular records, especially where disclosure could affect law-enforcement or national-security interests.

Recent court filings have generated renewed attention because they contain references to a past US investigation involving Tinubu. However, available court reporting does not establish that Tinubu was convicted of, or found guilty of, criminal wrongdoing.

The Presidency further said the court had allowed Tinubu to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, meaning he was permitted to take part in the case because of his interest in the requested records.

Onanuga also referred to a 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun. According to the Presidency, an FBI records check at the time found no criminal arrest records, outstanding warrants or wants for Tinubu.

The Presidency criticised what it described as inaccurate portrayals of the proceedings, particularly claims suggesting that Tinubu is currently facing a criminal prosecution in the United States.

It maintained that the court’s task is to determine whether the redactions applied by the FBI and DEA comply with US law, rather than to determine Tinubu’s criminal guilt or innocence.

The clarification comes amid heightened public interest in the case and renewed debate over documents held by US law-enforcement agencies concerning the President.

The Presidency said the legal proceedings should therefore be understood within the context of a civil Freedom of Information dispute and not as a criminal trial against the Nigerian President.