U.S. court case on Tinubu’s past forfeiture not criminal matter – Presidency

Mr. Onanuga accused the opposition of mischaracterising the matter that involves the civil forfeiture of funds by Mr Tinubu to the US government while he was being investigated for drug-related offences in 1993, six years before Mr. Tinubu was elected the governor of Lagos state.

While providing clarity to the saga, Onanuga said, “Here is the background to the case, which 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 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.

“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.”

… Nigeria not under ICC probe

In a related development, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has dismissed as false the claim that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating Nigeria for alleged crimes against humanity.

The AGF, in a statement, Thursday, said a petition anonymously filed before the global court seeking an investigation into alleged “systemic kidnappings in Nigeria as crimes against humanity,” was dismissed as incompetent.

Even though the application was dismissed, the Justice Minister said the federal government has decided to express its displeasure to the ICC over the bypass of established legal channels by the President of its Pre-Trial Division.

According to the AGF, assigning an unverified petition from an anonymous submitter to Pre-Trial Chamber II, purportedly pursuant to Regulation 46(3) of the Regulations of the Court, was a legal misstep capable of casting an unnecessary shadow over the integrity of the ICC’s judicial processes.

The statement, which the AGF made available to newsmen through his media aide, Mr. Kamarudeen Ogundele, read:

“The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice wishes to address recent public discourse and procedural records concerning a filing before the International Criminal Court (ICC) titled ‘Formal Communication Requesting Investigation into Systemic Kidnappings in Nigeria as Crimes Against Humanity’ (Document No. ICC-RoC46(3)-01/26).

“The Federal Government notes with serious concern that on 26th August 2026, the President of the Pre-Trial Division improperly initiated a procedural process by assigning an unverified filing from an anonymous submitter to Pre-Trial Chamber II, purportedly pursuant to Regulation 46(3) of the Regulations of the Court.

 “This administrative assignment was executed without a prior, reasoned threshold determination on the competence of the Pre-Trial Chamber or on whether the communication was manifestly frivolous, thereby breaching the foundational procedural safeguards established under the Court’s own regulations.

“The Federal Ministry of Justice confirms that, following this flawed initiation, Pre-Trial Chamber II, comprising Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala (Presiding), Judge Sergio Gerardo Ugalde Godínez, and Judge Haykel Ben Mahfoudh, issued an official decision on 1st September 2026, unequivocally dismissing the request in limine (at the threshold) on the clear ground that it was not properly before the Court and lacked any legal basis.

 “While the Federal Republic of Nigeria acknowledges the swift decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II to throw out this unmeritorious application, the Federal Government observes with serious concern that the initial processing of this anonymous communication unusually bypassed established legal channels.

 “The Federal Government calls on all organs of the Court to adhere strictly to clear statutory procedures to protect the credibility of international criminal justice and maintain the trust of sovereign State Parties.”