By NaijaonpointOnline
A Washington-based Republican policy and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., has escalated its campaign over historical US law-enforcement records involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by taking the matter directly to members of the United States Congress.
The firm said it had commenced engagements with lawmakers and senior congressional aides following their return to Washington, focusing on records connected to a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute involving Tinubu and US law-enforcement agencies.
In a statement published on its verified X account on Wednesday, the firm said it moved immediately to contact officials on Capitol Hill.
“Members of Congress and senior congressional staff returned to Washington today, and we wasted no time,” the firm said, adding that it had “immediately began reaching out to our friends on Capitol Hill.”
According to the lobbying company, its congressional outreach centres on allegations and historical records relating to suspected heroin-trafficking investigations involving Tinubu during the 1980s and 1990s.
The firm argued that the matter extends beyond Nigerian domestic politics because some of the records being sought originated from American law-enforcement investigations.
It said the information could potentially have implications for US national security, intelligence cooperation, law-enforcement collaboration and Washington’s counter-narcotics policies.
“Our message was clear: these allegations are not merely a Nigerian domestic political matter,” the firm stated.
It further questioned whether Tinubu should be regarded by Washington as a strategic partner or a potential national-security concern.
The development is linked to a FOIA case brought by American transparency campaigner Aaron Greenspan, who has sought access to records held by agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the US Department of Justice.
The records reportedly relate to investigations conducted in the early 1990s, including FBI files and interview materials.
The Chicago Forfeiture Case
At the centre of the broader controversy is a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in Chicago involving approximately $460,000 associated with accounts linked to Tinubu.
US court records have previously established that the money was forfeited to the United States government.
However, the forfeiture proceeding was civil rather than criminal. It did not result in a criminal conviction against Tinubu for drug trafficking.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing and has not been convicted of drug trafficking in the United States.
FBI Records Remain Under Seal
The latest development in the FOIA litigation came on August 28, when the FBI submitted disputed records to US District Judge Beryl Howell for private judicial review.
The documents were not publicly released. Instead, they were submitted to the court under seal and for the judge’s private examination.
The FBI has maintained that certain portions of the records are protected under US law and cannot be fully explained in a public filing without potentially exposing sensitive law-enforcement information.
In an earlier court filing, the agency argued that an ex parte, under-seal declaration was necessary to explain its reliance on exemptions under the FOIA.
Judge Howell is expected to determine whether the disputed material should remain withheld, be released, or be disclosed with certain portions redacted.
Importantly, the submission of the documents to the judge does not amount to their public release and does not constitute a finding that Tinubu committed any offence.
Presidency Rejects Lobbying Campaign
The Presidency has meanwhile dismissed the lobbying firm’s campaign as politically motivated and rejected attempts to portray the firm’s statements as official US government positions.
Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, said the statements attributed to the lobbying company should not be confused with the position of the United States government.
“The incendiary press releases being carefully churned out from Washington are public relations propaganda sheets passed off as the view of the U.S. Government. They are not,” Dare said.
The presidential aide also questioned the lobbying firm’s alleged relationship with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and reports of a $1.2 million lobbying arrangement.
Dare challenged the firm to produce documentary evidence for claims it had presented as intelligence.
“Sane minds must categorically dismiss these reports as fabricated, politically motivated, and entirely unsupported by evidence,” he said.
According to him, the allegations contained no identifiable intelligence document, named Western official or verifiable evidence of an exchange involving Nigerian state secrets or resources.
He added that statements by Karl Von Batten, the firm’s founder, should not be interpreted as representing the Trump administration.
“Dr. Karl Von Batten’s comments represent solely the position of an individual associated with Atiku-linked political interests, not the U.S. government or President Trump,” Dare said.
Tinubu’s US Lawyers Defend Legal Challenge
Tinubu’s legal team in the United States has also defended its decision to challenge the release of portions of the records.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Wole Afolabi, who is part of the president’s US legal team, said the lawyers were exercising rights available to them under American law.
He argued that seeking legal protection over information contained in government records should not automatically be interpreted as an attempt to suppress evidence of criminal conduct.
“So precisely what we are doing is going under the coverage of the law. It’s what the law gives us the right to do,” Afolabi said.
He added that failing to take advantage of available legal protections would amount to professional malpractice.
Afolabi also cautioned against interpreting the historical civil forfeiture case as a criminal conviction.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it. He would have been indicted,” he said.
On the existence of FBI and DEA records concerning Tinubu, the lawyer emphasised that being investigated or appearing in an investigative file does not by itself establish criminal responsibility.
“Anyone can be a subject of investigation. That’s just how it goes. I mean, there’s a presumption of innocence,” Afolabi said.
What Happens Next?
The dispute now moves largely into the US judicial process, where Judge Howell will determine the extent to which the contested records can legally be disclosed.
While Von Batten-Montague-York is seeking to elevate the issue into congressional and foreign-policy discussions, the Presidency maintains that the campaign is politically driven and does not represent the position of Washington.
For now, the FBI records remain under seal, and there has been no judicial finding in the FOIA case that President Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.
The central question before the court remains whether portions of the records being withheld by the FBI are protected under US law or should be released, either completely or with appropriate redactions.