A Washington-based Republican policy advisory and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., has taken allegations concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s alleged links to a decades-old heroin investigation to members of the United States Congress.
The firm said it had begun engaging lawmakers and senior congressional staff over records at the centre of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case involving Tinubu and US law enforcement agencies.
In a statement posted on its verified X account on Wednesday, the firm said it had moved quickly to brief lawmakers following the return of members of Congress and their senior staff to Washington.
“Members of Congress and senior congressional staff returned to Washington today, and we wasted no time,” the firm said.
It added that it had “immediately began reaching out to our friends on Capitol Hill” to brief them on the matter.
The lobbying firm said its discussions with congressional officials centred on allegations of heroin trafficking involving Tinubu during the 1980s and 1990s.
It argued that the issue should not be treated solely as a domestic Nigerian political dispute because of the involvement of American law enforcement agencies and the wider implications for US foreign policy.
“Our message was clear: these allegations are not merely a Nigerian domestic political matter,” it said.
According to the firm, the records could become relevant to discussions around US national security, intelligence cooperation, law enforcement collaboration and Washington’s counter-narcotics policies.
It also raised questions about the future of relations between Nigeria and the United States, particularly at a time when Washington is reviewing its strategic interests and partnerships across Africa.
The firm said American policymakers should examine “whether President Tinubu represents a strategic asset or an increasing national-security liability.”
Recall, the case stems from Freedom of Information Act requests filed by American transparency campaigner Aaron Greenspan, who has sought access to records held by agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the US Department of Justice.
The records sought relate to investigations conducted in the early 1990s. Among the materials requested are FBI files and interview reports connected to the period.
The controversy also traces back to a 1993 civil forfeiture case in Chicago involving about $460,000 linked to accounts associated with Tinubu.
US court records have previously shown that the money was forfeited to the American government.
However, the proceedings were civil in nature and did not result in a criminal conviction against Tinubu.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing and has not been convicted of drug trafficking in the United States.
The development comes days after the FBI submitted records connected to the matter to US District Judge Beryl Howell for private examination.
The documents were submitted to the court on August 28 after the judge ordered the agency to meet a deadline in the FOIA proceedings.
The FBI did not release the documents publicly. Instead, the records were presented “under seal, ex parte, in camera”, allowing the judge to examine material that the agency says contains information protected under US law.
The FBI has argued that parts of the records cannot be explained publicly without exposing sensitive law enforcement information.
In an earlier filing, the agency said, “The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”
Judge Howell will ultimately determine whether the disputed material should remain sealed, be released in full or be released with portions redacted.
The private submission does not mean the records have been released or that the court has found Tinubu guilty of any offence.
In a related development, the Presidency yesterday rejected the latest campaign by Von Batten-Montague-York, describing the firm’s activities as politically motivated.
Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, said statements coming from the lobbying company should not be treated as official positions of the US government.
Dare also questioned the firm’s relationship with Atiku and its reported $1.2 million lobbying agreement.
He said, “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.”
The presidential aide further challenged the lobbyists to provide evidence for claims that they presented as intelligence.
“Sane minds must categorically dismiss these reports as fabricated, politically motivated, and entirely unsupported by evidence. The report presents no intelligence document, no named Western official, and no evidence of any exchange involving Nigeria’s secrets or resources,” Dare said.
He added, “It is nothing more than political speculation packaged as classified information. We demand that they produce the so-called “highly classified intelligence report,” identify their unnamed sources, and provide tangible evidence for their wild allegations.”
Dare also stressed that comments made by Karl Von Batten, the founder of the lobbying firm, should not be interpreted as statements from 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,” he said.
Tinubu’s US legal team has separately 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 legal team in the United States, said the lawyers were relying on protections available under American law.
He maintained that the dispute was about what could legally be released and not an attempt to conceal evidence of criminal conduct.
Afolabi said, “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. It would amount to professional malpractice on our part if we don’t take advantage of what the law offers.”
The lawyer also maintained that the historical forfeiture proceeding should not be confused with a criminal conviction.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There’s no shortcut around it. He would have been indicted,” Afolabi said.
He further stressed the presumption of innocence while discussing the FBI and DEA records.
“Anyone can be a subject of investigation. That’s just how it goes. I mean, there’s a presumption of innocence,” he said.