Tinubu Drug Records: US Firm Accuses Presidency of Misleading Nigerians Over Court Ruling
A United States-based political advisory and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, has accused the Nigerian Presidency of presenting a misleading account of a US court ruling involving President Bola Tinubu.
The firm alleged that the Presidency omitted significant details about ongoing legal proceedings seeking access to records connected to historical drug trafficking investigations involving Tinubu.
Its reaction followed a report shared by presidential aide Sunday Dare, titled, “US Court Blocks Discovery Attempt Against President Tinubu in FOIA Suit.”
In a statement published on its X account, the firm acknowledged that a US court rejected Aaron Greenspan’s request to question Tinubu through discovery proceedings.
However, it clarified that the ruling concerned a separate lawsuit involving alleged hacking activities by the Nigerian Presidency and its agents.
According to the firm, that proceeding was unrelated to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case seeking access to historical drug investigation records.
Von Batten-Montague-York argued that Dare’s account overlooked important aspects of the judgment, particularly decisions concerning documents withheld by American law enforcement agencies.
It claimed that the court rejected the FBI’s and Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) requests for summary judgment concerning most of their withheld materials.
The firm further alleged that the judge criticised both agencies for relying on vague and standardised explanations to withhold information involving Tinubu and his alleged associate, Agbele.
It also highlighted the court’s position on a 1993 asset-forfeiture affidavit prepared by the United States Department of Justice.
According to the firm, the affidavit reportedly outlined investigations into alleged drug trafficking and money laundering involving Tinubu.
It maintained that because the document was already publicly available, the agencies could not rely on broad privacy exemptions to conceal identical information.
The statement also drew attention to the judge’s rejection of the DEA’s explanations for withholding certain records concerning electronic surveillance.
According to the firm, the agency relied on brief, generic explanations involving wiretaps and pen registers without sufficiently establishing its legal grounds.
The court reportedly directed the FBI and DEA to review their records against existing public documents and justify any information they intended to keep redacted.
Both agencies were reportedly given until November 27, 2026, to provide detailed explanations supporting their continued withholding of the documents.
Von Batten-Montague-York accused the Presidency of highlighting the rejected discovery request while ignoring other significant aspects of the ongoing FOIA dispute.
The firm described the development as a major setback for Tinubu, insisting that the separate legal proceedings should not be confused.
However, the firm’s allegations and interpretation of the ruling do not constitute a fresh judicial finding that Tinubu committed drug trafficking.
Leave a comment