A United States-based political advisory and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, has issued another warning to President Bola Tinubu over allegations concerning his name in US drug-related records.
The firm said it would continue pursuing the matter and declared that those allegedly involved in activities that harmed Americans could not escape the reach of US justice.
In a post on its verified X handle, the firm said its founder, Dr Von Batten, had used the Republican National Midterm Convention to brief US lawmakers and senior state government officials about what it described as allegations contained in Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records involving Tinubu.
According to the firm, Dr Von Batten met with members of Congress and senior officials, including Virginia Representative John McGuire and Indiana Representative Diego Morales.
It said the discussions focused on allegations that Tinubu was part of a criminal organisation that smuggled heroin from Nigeria into the United States during the 1980s and 1990s.
Von Batten-Montague-York further claimed that records before the US authorities linked the alleged organisation to the movement of heroin through Chicago and Indiana, while alleging that proceeds from the operation were laundered through several banks, including financial institutions in Virginia.
The allegations have not resulted in a US criminal conviction against Tinubu, and the Presidency has repeatedly maintained that the ongoing proceedings concern access to government records rather than a criminal prosecution of the Nigerian President.
Nevertheless, the US firm said it intended to continue its efforts to draw attention to the records and allegations surrounding the controversy.
“We have a message for President Bola Tinubu and his enablers. We are coming for you. As cowardly 9/11 terrorists and their enablers found out, time is irrelevant,” the firm said.
“Those who harm Americans cannot outrun American justice. The war against Nigerian Narco terrorists has no expiration date,” it added.
The latest statement comes shortly after Von Batten-Montague-York confirmed that fresh filings it submitted had been accepted and docketed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a case involving US government records associated with Tinubu.
The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., is before the court under case number 1:23-cv-01816-BAH.
The firm had submitted a Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae as well as a Supplemental Notice of Evidentiary Exhibits.
It said the court had formally entered both documents into the federal docket, allowing the materials to be considered as part of the ongoing proceedings.
Von Batten-Montague-York said the filings were intended to highlight what it considers inconsistencies between public statements by Nigerian government officials concerning the controversy and arguments being made in the US litigation to protect the records from disclosure on privacy grounds.
“We are happy to announce that our Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Supplemental Notice of Evidentiary Exhibits have been officially accepted and docketed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” the firm said.
“Both submissions have now been officially entered on the federal docket in Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH. We thank President Tinubu, his advisers, and his ministers for refusing to stop digging themselves into a hole,” it added.
The firm argued that Tinubu could not simultaneously rely on privacy protections in federal court while Nigerian officials publicly discussed the controversy.
“You cannot demand privacy in a U.S. federal court while publicly litigating the same controversy and attacking those advocating for disclosure,” it said.
Von Batten-Montague-York also said the significance of its recent filings did not depend on whether the court eventually granted or rejected its request to participate as an amicus curiae.
“We are very pleased with this outcome because, regardless of whether the Court ultimately grants or denies our Motion for Leave, our submissions are now on the docket,” the firm said.
It claimed the materials placed before the court included evidence concerning public comments by Tinubu’s officials and relatives about the underlying controversy, as well as what it described as mischaracterisations of facts surrounding the case.
An amicus curiae, commonly described as a “friend of the court,” is a person or organisation that is not a direct party to a case but seeks permission to provide information or legal arguments that may assist the court.
The underlying litigation arose after Greenspan sought records from US government agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. The requests relate to records associated with Tinubu and other individuals and have involved agencies including the FBI and DEA.
Tinubu subsequently became involved in the proceedings after his lawyers entered an appearance in the case.
Much of the litigation has centred on whether the requested records should be released, withheld or redacted and which exemptions under US freedom-of-information law may apply.