United States lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York has announced the release of what it describes as publicly available FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration court filings concerning an investigation involving President Bola Tinubu.
In a statement shared on X, the firm accused the Nigerian Presidency of misrepresenting the records and urged Nigerians to examine the documents themselves. The firm has been retained by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
“These are the government’s own court documents. We encourage everyone to read them, download them, study them, and reach their own conclusions,” the statement said.
The firm said the documents discuss hundreds of pages identified by the agencies and explain their arguments for withholding portions from public disclosure.
It distinguished the public filings it was sharing from sensitive investigative records submitted privately to the court. According to the statement, those confidential materials remain outside public access.
The firm also argued that the FBI’s description of the records as material gathered during investigations into drug-trafficking crimes challenges the presidency’s account of the matter.
The dispute follows an April 2025 ruling by US District Judge Beryl Howell, who found that Justice Department filings had already officially acknowledged Tinubu as a subject of a criminal investigation involving the FBI and DEA.
The court directed the agencies to search for and process records eligible for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. That ruling did not establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu.
The Presidency, however, has maintained that the ongoing proceedings concern access to government records.
In a September 3 statement, presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga described the litigation as a civil disclosure dispute and said it does not constitute a criminal charge, trial, or finding of guilt against the president. He said the US court would determine whether the contested information should be released.
Tinubu’s lawyers have argued that investigative files retain privacy protections even where information about the earlier forfeiture proceedings is already public.
The FBI and DEA have also invoked exemptions covering personal privacy, confidential sources, and investigative methods.
The distinction is central to the controversy: records can originate from a criminal investigation while the current lawsuit over their disclosure remains a civil proceeding. Neither the existence of investigative records nor an order to process them establishes guilt.
The Dropbox documents announced by the firm can be found here.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
A US court has confirmed that Tinubu was named as a subject in an FBI/DEA investigation and ordered the agencies to process related records under FOIA, but this is a lawsuit about whether documents should be released, not a criminal trial.
No wrongdoing has been proven, and no charges have been filed. Both sides agree on this legal framing even as they clash over how the documents themselves should be interpreted.
Atiku’s lobbying firm says they undercut the presidency’s narrative, while the presidency insists the case is purely about records access, not guilt.
