NEWS
US Lobbying Firm Accuses Tinubu Administration of Misleading Public Over FBI, DEA Records
A United States-based political advisory and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, has accused the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of attempting to mislead the international public over an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) legal battle involving records connected to the Nigerian president.
The firm made the allegation in a statement published on its verified X handle on Friday, September 4, 2026, escalating an increasingly contentious dispute over the nature of documents being sought from US government agencies.
The latest development followed a statement issued by the Nigerian Presidency on Thursday, September 3, 2026, in which the administration sought to clarify the nature of the proceedings before a United States federal court.
The Presidency described the FOIA matter involving records relating to Tinubu as a civil dispute concerning the disclosure of government records, rather than a criminal case against the Nigerian president.
The clarification, however, drew a strong response from Von Batten-Montague-York, which said the statement from the Nigerian State House had created grounds for it to become formally involved in the US litigation.
The firm disclosed that it is preparing to seek permission from the US District Court for the District of Columbia to participate in the case as an amicus curiae, a party that provides information or legal arguments to assist the court without being one of the principal parties to the dispute.
“The Nigerian Presidency’s attempt to mislead the world has opened the door for us to step in officially. We are preparing to seek leave from the US District Court for the District of Columbia to file an amicus curiae brief concerning President Tinubu’s asserted privacy interests.
“Pursuant to D.D.C. Local Civil Rule 7(o)(2), today we notified Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and President Tinubu’s counsel. We are awaiting their responses before filing.
“Our argument is straightforward: the Nigerian Statehouse statement blunder does not automatically eliminate President Tinubu’s privacy protections, but when his own Presidency voluntarily places the records, litigation, and privacy claim into the international public debate through an official government statement, we believe it destroys the weight of his asserted privacy interest under Exemption 7(C).
The firm’s proposed intervention centres on the tension between the privacy protections being asserted in the US court and the Nigerian Presidency’s public comments about the records.
According to Von Batten-Montague-York, the Presidency’s decision to publicly address the documents and the ongoing litigation could affect the extent to which privacy arguments can be relied upon to prevent disclosure under the relevant FOIA exemption.
The firm went further, directly challenging the Nigerian government’s handling of the controversy and alleging that official statements about the records contradict what it says are the contents of documents from US law-enforcement agencies and court proceedings.
“Nigerian President Tinubu cannot ask a federal court to protect his alleged heroin trafficking records on privacy grounds while simultaneously using the power of the Nigerian Presidency to publicly discuss those same records and state ‘obvious untruths’ about what the official Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and court records actually say.
“You cannot claim privacy before the Court and then blatantly misrepresent the records to the public. That might work in Nigeria; it does not work in the United States.”
The statement marks another significant turn in the dispute, particularly as the FOIA proceedings have attracted considerable public and political attention in Nigeria and the United States.
At the centre of the controversy are records reportedly sought from US government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The legal battle has focused on whether certain records should be released and whether privacy and other exemptions under US law provide grounds for withholding them.
Von Batten-Montague-York’s proposed amicus filing, if permitted by the court, could introduce another voice into the legal debate over the interpretation and public disclosure of the records.
The firm’s latest position also puts renewed attention on the statements issued by both sides and on how the US court ultimately weighs privacy claims against the public-interest considerations surrounding the requested documents.
As the parties await responses to the firm’s notification, attention is now expected to shift to whether the District Court for the District of Columbia will grant permission for Von Batten-Montague-York to formally participate in the proceedings and present its arguments concerning President Tinubu’s asserted privacy interests.