A Washington-based lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York L.C., has disclosed that it has begun circulating United States Department of Justice (DOJ) records relating to a decades-old civil forfeiture case involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to officials in the Donald Trump administration and members of the U.S. Congress.
The firm said the documents are being distributed to administration officials, lawmakers and senior congressional aides as part of efforts to draw attention to allegations contained in historical filings made by U.S. authorities during an investigation conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
According to the firm, it was engaged in March 2026 under a $1.2 million, 12-month lobbying agreement linked to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. The contract reportedly covers strategic advisory services, engagement with the U.S. executive and legislative branches, and efforts to counter narratives promoted by the Nigerian government.
In a post on X, the lobbying company claimed that some officials in Washington had not previously been aware of the historical court records and said it had begun distributing more than 60 pages of DOJ documents.
“Following discussions with members of the @realDonaldTrump Administration, Congress, and senior congressional staff, we began providing more than 60 pages of @TheJusticeDept documents concerning the DOJ’s allegations of Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s alleged involvement in a heroin trafficking investigation spanning the late 1980s and early 1990s,” the firm stated.
The company said it intends to ensure that court filings, affidavits and judicial decisions connected to the matter are brought to the attention of senior U.S. officials.
It also circulated a document titled “Background and Chronology of the 1993 U.S. Department of Justice Heroin-Proceeds Forfeiture Case and the 2023 FOIA Litigation Concerning Alleged Heroin Trafficking from Nigeria to the United States Involving Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the Current President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Background of the Civil Forfeiture Case
According to the chronology, U.S. investigators examined the activities of a heroin distribution organisation operating in Chicago between 1988 and 1991.
Historical court filings alleged that proceeds linked to the organisation were deposited into bank accounts owned or controlled by Tinubu.
The civil forfeiture case identified Tinubu, Adegboyega Mueez Akande and Abiodun Agbele in connection with funds targeted by the U.S. government.
However, the allegations contained in the forfeiture proceedings did not result in a criminal conviction against Tinubu. The Nigerian president has consistently denied any involvement in criminal wrongdoing and was never criminally charged in connection with the matter.
DOJ Alleged Funds Were Crime Proceeds
According to the lobbying firm’s chronology, investigators identified Adegboyega Mueez Akande as a leader of the alleged organisation and a longtime associate of Tinubu.
The document stated that U.S. authorities alleged Akande provided money used to open one of the bank accounts associated with Tinubu.
Abiodun Agbele was described as another associate whom Tinubu reportedly said he met through Akande.
The records further stated that Agbele was arrested after allegedly selling heroin to an undercover law enforcement officer and later cooperated with investigators.
In 1993, the U.S. government filed a civil forfeiture action before the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking the seizure of funds it alleged were proceeds of drug trafficking or involved in money laundering.
The proceedings ended in a negotiated civil settlement under which $460,000 was forfeited to the U.S. government.
The case was a civil forfeiture action against the funds and not a criminal prosecution or conviction of Tinubu.
Court records showed that U.S. authorities relied on information from agencies including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in arguing there was probable cause to believe the funds were connected to unlawful financial transactions.
FOIA Litigation
The lobbying firm’s document also highlighted efforts by journalist Aaron Greenspan to obtain records relating to the investigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Greenspan filed a FOIA lawsuit in 2023 against several U.S. agencies.
In 2025, a U.S. judge ruled that the FBI and DEA could not rely entirely on a blanket refusal to confirm or deny the existence of certain requested records because the historical investigation had already been officially acknowledged.
The agencies were subsequently directed to process relevant portions of the request in accordance with FOIA requirements.
According to Von Batten-Montague-York, the litigation remains ongoing.
The firm said it is forwarding the chronology and related court decisions to selected committees in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate for what it described as “informational and oversight purposes.”
It linked the initiative to Nigeria’s strategic relationship with the United States and reports that President Tinubu is seeking a meeting with President Donald Trump during the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly.
As of the time of filing this report, the Presidency had not issued an official response to the lobbying firm’s latest claims.
Tribunal Previously Ruled on the Matter
Tinubu’s U.S. civil forfeiture case was one of the issues raised in legal challenges filed after the 2023 presidential election.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi argued that the forfeiture should have disqualified Tinubu from contesting the election.
However, the Presidential Election Petition Court held that the petitioners failed to establish that Tinubu had been convicted of any criminal offence in the United States.
The tribunal ruled that the proceedings relied upon were civil in nature and did not prove that Tinubu supplied false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by failing to disclose the forfeiture.
