Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., has accused the Nigerian Presidency of misleading Nigerians over a recent United States court ruling involving President Bola Tinubu, insisting that the decision contains significant developments that were left out of the official explanation.
In a statement shared on its social media account, the legal firm said the Presidency’s account, particularly comments attributed to presidential spokesperson Sunday Dare, presented only part of the story while ignoring the court’s criticism of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over their refusal to release records connected to allegations of drug trafficking and money laundering involving Tinubu and his alleged associate, Abiodun Agbele.
The firm acknowledged that the US court blocked Aaron Greenspan’s request to serve discovery on President Tinubu. However, it stressed that the request concerned a separate legal matter involving alleged hacking by the Nigerian Presidency and its agents, and had nothing to do with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case seeking records connected to alleged heroin trafficking.
A US court has ordered the FBI and the DEA to reexamine secret files on Nigerian President Bola Tinubu and provide detailed reasons for any continued secrecy by November 27 2026. The ruling came in a freedom of information case seeking alleged heroin trafficking records from the 1990s.
Delivering the ruling on October 30, 2026, Judge Howell rejected most of the agencies attempts to keep large portions of the files closed. Judges criticized the FBI and DEA for relying on vague standard language and imprecise claims when refusing to release information about Tinubu and his alleged associate Agbele. Because a detailed 1993 Justice Department asset forfeiture affidavit already maps out the drug trafficking and money laundering investigation into Tinubu and is already public the agencies cannot use broad privacy or secrecy rules to hide identical details.
The DEA also failed when it tried to withhold pages with single sentence generic explanations about wiretaps and pen registers. The judge said the agency did not meet its legal burden. The court directed both agencies to compare the files against the public record and supply specific justifications for anything that remains redacted.
In a separate unrelated matter the same court blocked a request by Aaron Greenspan to serve discovery on Tinubu over alleged hacking claims involving the Nigerian presidency. That denial has no connection to the freedom of information case.
A statement from the Nigerian presidency highlighted only the blocked discovery request and left out the rest of the rulings. The full court decision requires the FBI and DEA to revisit their withholdings and explain them in detail. The November 27 deadline means the agencies must either release more material or justify continued secrecy with precise legal arguments.
The development brings renewed attention to the long running efforts to obtain US government records connected to allegations involving Tinubu’s past and alleged links to drug trafficking activities.
At the centre of the dispute is whether US law enforcement agencies can continue withholding information when similar details are already available in public records.
The outcome could determine how much additional information about the historical investigation becomes available to the public.
