The presidency has dismissed reports suggesting that President Bola Tinubu is facing a criminal case in the United States, clarifying that the ongoing proceedings before a Washington, DC, court concern a civil dispute over access to government records.

The case was filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), following his requests for records from several US government agencies.

Onanuga said the proceedings should not be characterised as a criminal trial against the Nigerian President.

“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 Bola Ahmed Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing,” the spokesman said.

Tinubu was subsequently allowed by the court to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor, enabling him to protect his privacy interests in the records being sought, the media aide said.

According to him, the defence allows US agencies, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny whether particular records exist.

However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration remain parties to the suit and have produced 399 pages of records, some of which were redacted under exemptions provided by US law, Onanuga stated.

The President’s spokesman further said the redactions were based on several legal protections, including grand jury secrecy, attorney-client privilege, law enforcement considerations and personal privacy.

“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. 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. (FOIA Exemption 3),” the statement partly read.

“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. (FOIA Exemption 5).

“Some of the documents were prepared for law enforcement purposes. (FOIA Exemption 5).

“Some of the documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)).

“Some of the documents, if disclosed, will reveal the identities of confidential sources or compromise the techniques that law enforcement agencies use in investigating crimes. (FOIA Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E)).”

Onanuga added that Tinubu had also invoked his privacy rights under a FOIA exemption in the proceedings.

According to the statement, Greenspan has until September 11 to respond to filings made by the defendants and the intervenor, while the FBI, DEA and Tinubu have until September 18 to file further responses.