By David Torough, Abuja

The Presidency has dismissed reports suggesting that President Bola Tinubu is facing a criminal case in the United States, clarifying that the ongoing litigation before a Washington, D.C.

, federal court is a civil dispute over access to government records under the U. S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Presidential Spokesperson and Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the clarification in a statement issued Thursday in Abuja, urging the Nigerian media and public to distinguish between verified court proceedings and what he described as partisan speculation.

“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,” Onanuga said.

The dispute originated from FOIA requests filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan in 2022 and 2023, seeking records from U.S. government agencies relating to a Chicago heroin-trafficking investigation dating to the early 1990s in which Tinubu was named alongside Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande and Abiodun Agbele.

After some U.S. agencies declined to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, Greenspan instituted Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2023.

Tinubu was subsequently permitted to intervene in the proceedings to protect his privacy interests.

The Presidency said several agencies initially relied on the “Glomar” defence, a legal mechanism under which an agency may neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain investigative records where disclosure could harm protected interests.

However, the court later ordered further processing of the records. According to the Presidency, the CIA, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of State, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service were subsequently removed from the proceedings after obtaining summary judgment.

The remaining dispute centres on records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The Presidency said the two agencies have, in compliance with court orders, produced 399 pages of records, although portions were redacted pursuant to exemptions contained in U.S. law.

Greenspan is challenging the withholding of the unredacted portions, while the FBI and DEA, through the U.S. Department of Justice, are defending the redactions.

The exemptions cited by the agencies cover grand jury proceedings and certain pen-register and trap-and-trace information; attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges; law-enforcement materials; personal privacy; confidential sources; and investigative techniques.

The Presidency said Tinubu, acting on the advice of his lawyers, had also invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protection against certain unwarranted invasions of personal privacy in law-enforcement records.

It stressed that the President’s opposition to disclosure should not be interpreted as an admission of criminal wrongdoing.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the statement said, adding that the issue before the court is whether the agencies’ redactions are lawful under U.S. law.

The Presidency also recalled a February 4, 2003 letter from the American Consulate in Lagos to then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun, stating that an FBI records check had found no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants for Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

The current litigation remains before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Greenspan has until September 11, 2026, to file his opposition and reply to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu, while the FBI, DEA and the President have until September 18 to respond.

The Presidency also took aim at recent commentary by Washington-based lobbyist Karl Von Batten, saying neither Von Batten nor his client, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, is a party to the litigation.

Onanuga urged the Nigerian media to focus on the evidence and court filings rather than political interpretations, stressing that the outcome would be determined by the court under applicable U.S. law.

“The litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute under FOIA. It does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or judicial finding against President Tinubu,” the Presidency said.

Meanwhile,the International Criminal Court (ICC) has dismissed an anonymous case against Nigeria over alleged crimes against humanity, says Attorney-General, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).

 Fagbemi, in a statement by his Special Adviser on Communication and Publicity, Kamarudeen Ogundele, disclosed this on Thursday in Abuja.

 He said the filing, titled ‘Formal Communication Requesting Investigation into Systemic Kidnappings in Nigeria as Crimes Against Humanity’, breached established ICC procedures.

 The document, numbered ICC-RoC46(3)-01/26, was submitted anonymously and sought an investigation into alleged systemic kidnappings in Nigeria.

 Fagbemi said the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber II dismissed the request at the threshold because it was improperly before the Court.

He said the Chamber also found that the communication lacked any legal basis for consideration under the Court’s governing framework.

 According to him, the dismissal followed an earlier procedural step which he described as improper.

He said the President of the Pre-Trial Division had assigned the unverified communication to Pre-Trial Chamber II under Regulation 46(3).

 “The Federal Government notes with serious concern that on August 26, the President of the Pre-Trial Division improperly initiated a procedural process,” Fagbemi said.

 He said the assignment occurred without a prior, reasoned determination on the Chamber’s competence or whether the communication was manifestly frivolous.

Fagbemi said the development breached “foundational procedural safeguards” established under the Court’s regulations.

 He identified the judges on Pre-Trial Chamber II as Rosario Salvatore Aitala, Sergio Gerardo Ugalde Godínez and Haykel Ben Mahfoudh.

The minister said Nigeria welcomed the Chamber’s swift dismissal but remained concerned about the initial handling of the anonymous communication.

He said the filing unusually bypassed established legal channels and could cast an unnecessary shadow over the Court’s judicial processes.

“The activation of internal registry mechanisms based on an unverified filing represents an unusual and troubling departure from the governing statutory framework,” he said.

Fagbemi said internal administrative guidelines could not be used to circumvent procedures established under the Rome Statute.

“The authority to evaluate information or request an investigation rests solely with the Prosecutor of the ICC,” he said.

He added that formal referrals could also originate from a State Party or the UN Security Council.

According to him, neither the President of the Pre-Trial Division nor any Pre-Trial Chamber has authority to receive anonymous petitions.

He said such bodies also lacked powers to interfere in the internal security matters of a sovereign nation.

Fagbemi warned that unchecked administrative handling of anonymous requests could undermine Nigeria’s relationship and cooperation with the ICC.

He stressed that Nigeria remained committed to the Rome Statute, international accountability and the rule of law.

“However, the primary constitutional responsibility for investigating and prosecuting domestic criminal activities, including kidnapping and banditry, resides firmly with Nigeria’s national judicial and law enforcement institutions,” he said.

The minister said this position was consistent with the fundamental principle of complementarity under international criminal justice.