Tinubu: US Firm Says There Will Be No Cover-Up as Court Sets Deadline for Drug Records Release
A United States-based policy advisory and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, has said there will be no cover-up over records concerning allegations of drug trafficking involving President Bola Tinubu.
The firm made the statement as the legal dispute over the release of records held by United States law enforcement agencies enters a fresh stage.
In a statement posted on X on Tuesday, Von Batten-Montague-York said the administration of US President Donald Trump would not shield anyone from scrutiny over the allegations.
The firm accused the administration of former US President Joe Biden of resisting efforts to make public records linked to the allegations against Tinubu.
It said the US Department of Justice under Biden had opposed the release of Freedom of Information Act records concerning the Nigerian president.
However, the firm said the position had changed under the Trump administration.
“Unlike President Joe Biden’s DOJ, which fought the release of FOIA records concerning drug-trafficking allegations involving Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, the DOJ under President Donald Trump will never protect an alleged drug trafficker linked to the smuggling of heroin from Nigeria through Illinois to Indiana,” the firm said.
Von Batten-Montague-York also thanked Trump, US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, members of the Trump administration and lawmakers in Congress for what it described as their willingness to pursue the release of the records.
The firm alleged that the previous administration had concentrated on Trump while records relating to the allegations against Tinubu remained locked in a prolonged legal dispute.
According to the firm, the records should be made public rather than withheld from the public.
The latest development comes shortly after a federal court granted Pirro only four additional days to comply with an order concerning the release of the records.
Politics Nigeria earlier reported that Pirro had asked the court for more time to comply with the directive requiring the release of documents held by the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.
The US Attorney had reportedly requested an additional 10 days.
However, US District Judge Beryl Howell granted only four days, setting August 21 as the new deadline for compliance.
The decision is significant because the dispute over the records has already continued for several years.
The case originated from Freedom of Information Act requests filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan.
Greenspan sought access to records relating to US investigations involving Tinubu and another Nigerian, Abiodun Agbele.
The requests covered several US agencies, including the FBI and DEA.
The agencies had previously relied on so-called “Glomar” responses. Such responses allow an agency, in certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm or deny whether records exist.
Judge Howell later rejected the broad application of that position in relation to the records being sought.
In April 2025, the judge directed the FBI and DEA to search for and process non-exempt records responsive to the FOIA requests.
The court also ordered the agencies to move away from blanket refusals to confirm or deny the existence of the records.
Despite the earlier ruling, the legal battle over the documents has continued.
The records being sought are connected to a 1990s investigation in the United States involving suspected narcotics trafficking.
The matter has attracted attention because of a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000 linked to accounts associated with Tinubu.
US court records have previously shown that the money was forfeited to the US government. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing and has consistently rejected allegations that he was involved in drug trafficking.
The distinction between civil forfeiture and criminal conviction has also featured prominently in political arguments surrounding the matter in Nigeria.
The issue was raised during the legal challenge to the outcome of the 2023 presidential election.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi argued before the Presidential Election Petition Court that the US forfeiture proceedings raised questions about Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the election.
The election tribunal, however, rejected the argument.
The court held that the forfeiture proceeding was civil in nature and that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been convicted of a criminal offence in the United States.
The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the outcome of the presidential election.
Despite the court decisions, the controversy has remained politically sensitive.
The issue has now received renewed attention following the engagement of Von Batten-Montague-York by Atiku.
The Washington-based firm was retained by Atiku under a government affairs and strategic advisory agreement. Since then, it has intensified its campaign for greater disclosure of US records relating to the Tinubu matter.
In July, the firm said it had begun sharing more than 60 pages of Department of Justice documents and related court materials with officials in the Trump administration, members of Congress and congressional staff.
Also Read: Tinubu Signs Deep Offshore Tax Remission Order, Targets $50bn Oil and Gas Investment
The documents reportedly include federal court filings, affidavits and materials connected to the 1993 forfeiture case and the subsequent FOIA litigation.
Von Batten-Montague-York has argued that US officials and lawmakers should have access to the complete history of the case.
The firm has also connected the disclosure campaign to wider questions surrounding transparency and US-Nigeria relations.
