The ongoing legal dispute over US government records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken a fresh turn after Washington-based political advisory and lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York said its request to participate in the case has been formally entered on the docket of a US federal court.
The firm announced that its Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and a Supplemental Notice of Evidentiary Exhibits had been accepted and docketed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The filings relate to Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, a civil Freedom of Information Act dispute over records held by US government agencies concerning Tinubu.
The firm’s announcement does not mean that the court has granted its request to file the proposed amicus brief or adopted the arguments contained in it. The firm is seeking permission to participate in the proceedings as a non-party and present an additional perspective to the court.
Von Batten-Montague-York said its submissions seek to draw the court’s attention to public statements made by Nigerian government officials and relatives of Tinubu concerning the controversy, particularly in relation to the President’s position on the privacy of records being sought in the FOIA case.
The firm argued that the Nigerian Presidency cannot publicly discuss the underlying controversy while simultaneously relying on privacy arguments before a US federal court.
“You cannot demand privacy in a U.S. federal court while publicly litigating the same controversy and attacking those advocating for disclosure.”
According to the firm, the court now has its submissions before it regardless of whether President Tinubu or other parties oppose the request.
The development forms part of a long-running dispute that began with FOIA requests by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who sought records from several US agencies concerning Tinubu and investigations dating back to the early 1990s.
The agencies involved in the original litigation included the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Executive Office for US Attorneys, State Department, Internal Revenue Service and CIA. Some agencies initially relied on so-called Glomar responses, under which an agency neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records.
The litigation subsequently narrowed, with the FBI and DEA records becoming central to the continuing dispute. In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could not rely on their initial Glomar responses and directed them to search, process and determine what information could lawfully be released. Tinubu was later allowed to participate in the case as an intervenor and has sought protection for information he argues is subject to privacy interests.
Tinubu’s legal team has argued that the FOIA litigation should not be used to obtain private information about him and has asked the court to maintain applicable redactions and withholdings.
The latest filing by Von Batten-Montague-York therefore introduces another argument into the dispute, with the firm asking the court to consider whether public statements by Nigerian officials should affect the privacy arguments being advanced in relation to the records.
The firm has described the development as a victory because the materials are now formally before the court. However, the docketing of a filing is a procedural development and does not establish that the court agrees with its contents.
The underlying case also should not be described as a criminal prosecution of Tinubu. It is a FOIA lawsuit concerning access to US government records, although some of the requested records relate to historical US investigations that have generated allegations concerning the Nigerian President.
The court will ultimately determine what records can be released and what information, if any, can remain protected under applicable US law.
The latest filing means the dispute over the records, and particularly the competing arguments over privacy, public statements and disclosure, remains active before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
How did this story make you feel?
Join the conversation
Share a thoughtful response. Submissions may be reviewed before appearing.
