US court’ll determine release or withholding of Tinubu’s records, not Atiku – Presidency
The Presidency has said it is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that can determine whether President Bola Tinubu’s records will be released or withheld in the ongoing Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, case before it, and not Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
Read Also: We were offered $3m to stop campaign against Tinubu — Atiku-linked US lobbying firm
Also, the Presidency explained that it was a civil records-disclosure dispute, and neither was it a criminal case against President Tinubu, nor has the court found him guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.
According to the Presidency in a statement on Thursday, “The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
“The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.
“The Nigerian media should note that this case is exclusively within the control of Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court.
“She will determine its outcome, based on the evidence, applicable law, and the parties’ arguments, not the wishful preference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar or his agent, Mr Von Batten.”
Atiku Abubakar
Recall recent claims by the candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, for the 2027 election, Atiku Abubakar. Also, lobbyist, Ikemefuna Okeke Von Batten, has continued to claim that the US government has criminal records against the Nigerian president.
Furthermore, the United States authorities have been urged to release the findings of a Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, report on alleged drug-trafficking records linked to Tinubu.
The politicians making the calls says efforts to keep the report from the public heighten suspicion of guilt and desperation for a cover-up.
In fact, Atiku told FBI that citing “danger to lives” cannot justify withholding potentially disclosable records on President Tinubu from public scrutiny. He insisted that ordinary Nigerians are already paying with their lives for the President’s economic policies.
Why we can’t release records – FBI
The FBI had filed a motion seeking to submit ex parte in camera declarations on why it withheld information about its investigative records relating to allegations of drug trafficking against President Tinubu.
In an application dated August 20, the FBI told the US district court in Columbia that it cannot publicly explain all the reasons it is withholding certain records, hence the need for an ex parte in camera declaration.
Presidency reacts
Reacting in a statement by the Special Adviser to the President, Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said the case “comes 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 an FBI records check found no criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
“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 United States 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation and 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 statement then listed the reason for sealing certain records
“The FBI and DEA rejected the application to produce the documents without redactions for the following reasons:
“1. 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)
“2. 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)
“3. Some of the documents were prepared for law enforcement purposes. (FOIA Exemption 5)
“4. Some of the documents contain information which, if revealed, could lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)).
“5. 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)) President Bola Tinubu, on advice of his lawyers, has also asserted his rights as guaranteed by FOIA Exemption 7(C).
“The Plaintiff has until September 11, 2026, to file any opposition and reply to the Defendants’ and Intervener’s processes, while the FBI, DEA and the Intervenor have until September 18, 2026, to respond to the processes that the Plaintiff might have filed.”
Vanguard News
The post US court’ll determine release or withholding of Tinubu’s records, not Atiku – Presidency appeared first on Vanguard News.