The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has been asked to consider a public statement issued by the Nigerian Presidency as it weighs a dispute over FBI and DEA records concerning President Bola Tinubu.
Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. disclosed this in a statement posted on its X account, saying its proposed amicus curiae filing had been received by the court clerk in the case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al.
The firm is seeking permission to participate in the case as an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” to provide an additional perspective on Tinubu’s privacy claims and the decision by the Nigerian Presidency to publicly discuss the same FBI and DEA records that are at the centre of the legal dispute.
The firm argued that the Presidency’s public comments should be taken into account when the court considers whether Tinubu’s privacy interests justify continued protection of the records.
“Our position is simple: you cannot have it both ways,” the firm said.
“You cannot invoke privacy before a United States federal court while using the power of the Nigerian Presidency to publicly characterize those same investigative records and tell the world what they supposedly contain.”
According to the firm, the court should consider the Presidency’s own public actions when balancing Tinubu’s asserted privacy interests against the public interest in understanding the actions of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the US Department of Justice in connection with the investigative records.
The latest filing comes days after the lobbying firm claimed that an FBI filing before the same court referred to highly sensitive wiretap material contained in records responsive to requests concerning Tinubu.
Von Batten-Montague-York had alleged that the FBI was asking the court to prevent the release of the recordings, which it said were compiled during an investigation involving people suspected of heroin-trafficking crimes.
“Update: In the @FBI filing before the court, the FBI asked the court not to allow the disclosure of highly sensitive ‘wiretap’ recordings responsive to Nigerian President Bola Tinubu,” the firm said in its earlier statement.
The firm went further, saying its “plain-English reading” of the FBI document suggested that Tinubu could be heard on recordings connected to the investigation.
“In our plain-English reading of the document, the FBI has Nigerian President Bola Tinubu on tape connected to heroin-trafficking crimes,” it claimed.
However, the firm acknowledged that its interpretation of the documents was speculative, particularly its belief that Tinubu was the only person identified in the investigation who is still alive.
“We are speculating, but the only targeted person we believe is alive in that case is Nigerian President Bola #Tinubu,” it said.
The lobbying firm said the FBI was relying on FOIA Exemption 3 and Sections 2510–2520 of Title 18 of the US Code in seeking to protect the wiretap material. Those provisions include federal restrictions governing the interception and disclosure of communications.
It also pointed to a section of the FBI’s filing which, according to the firm, discussed privacy considerations involving deceased individuals. The firm cited a passage on pages 19 and 20 of Document 100-1 in which the agency reportedly stated that “privacy concerns are typically obviated once an individual is deceased.”
The firm has urged the court to reject the FBI’s position and order the release of the disputed material.
“We truly hope that the court puts aside the FBI’s argument and orders the release of the wiretap material,” it said.
The firm added, “If Nigerian President Tinubu is on those wiretap tapes connected to #heroin trafficking, the American people, the @realDonaldTrump Administration, Congress, and the #Nigerian people deserve to know what those tapes contain.”
The latest application is separate from the question of whether the court will ultimately order the release of the records. Von Batten-Montague-York said its immediate objective was to ensure that the court was made aware of the Nigerian Presidency’s public statement and its argument that the statement could affect Tinubu’s claim to privacy.
“We fully expect President Bola #Tinubu and the other parties to challenge this filing for one reason or another,” the firm said, describing such a response as expected.
“Our primary objective is to ensure that the Court is made aware of the Nigerian Presidency’s public statement and our argument that it potentially weakens President Tinubu’s asserted claim of privacy.”
The firm said it would welcome a decision allowing its proposed amicus brief to be formally docketed and considered by the court. It added that, regardless of the outcome of its motion, it had placed what it described as a significant development before the court for consideration.
The dispute stems from a Freedom of Information Act case initiated after Aaron Greenspan submitted FOIA requests in 2022 seeking US government records relating to Tinubu. After some agencies withheld records or declined to confirm or deny whether certain documents existed, Greenspan filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, DC, in 2023.
Tinubu was later allowed to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor.
The case is a civil dispute over access to government records rather than a criminal prosecution of the Nigerian President. The Presidency has repeatedly stressed this distinction amid growing public discussion of the case.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, previously said the litigation was concerned with whether records held by US government agencies should be disclosed under American freedom-of-information laws.
“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 Presidency has also said that the FBI and DEA remain at the centre of the outstanding dispute after other agencies obtained favourable rulings. According to the government, the two agencies have released 399 pages of records in compliance with court orders, although parts of the documents were redacted.
Tinubu has separately invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C), which provides protection for certain personal information contained in law enforcement records.
The Presidency has maintained that the release or withholding of records under FOIA should not be interpreted as evidence of criminal conduct.
“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability,” the Presidency said. “The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions.”