A fresh legal controversy has erupted over the United States court case involving records linked to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, after US-based political advisory and lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York accused the Nigerian Presidency of presenting an incomplete account of a recent court ruling.

The firm’s criticism followed a statement circulated by Sunday Dare, a presidential communications official, concerning a US court decision that rejected a request by Aaron Greenspan to obtain additional evidence from Tinubu and political consulting firm DCI Group in a separate dispute involving alleged cyberattacks.

According to Von Batten-Montague-York, the Presidency’s account focused on the rejection of the discovery request while failing to adequately explain other aspects of the ruling concerning Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for historical investigative records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

In a statement published on its X account, the firm argued that the discovery request and the dispute over access to the investigative records were separate legal issues. It accused the Presidency of using the court’s decision on the former to distract attention from the unresolved questions surrounding the latter.

The underlying case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, concerns Greenspan’s efforts to obtain government records relating to historical US investigations into alleged drug trafficking and money laundering. The records sought include material concerning Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele, an individual identified in the litigation as allegedly associated with the investigation.

On October 30, 2026, US District Judge Beryl Howell issued a ruling addressing competing requests for summary judgment by Greenspan and the federal agencies.

According to the published court ruling, the judge granted the FBI summary judgment on the adequacy of its search and certain withholdings under FOIA Exemption 5. However, she denied the remainder of the agencies’ joint request for summary judgment and also denied Greenspan’s own motion.

The ruling means that the agencies did not secure judicial approval for all their disputed decisions to withhold records. The court’s decision also addressed the agencies’ explanations for withholding information and the significance of material already in the public domain.

Von Batten-Montague-York seized on those aspects of the judgment, arguing that the court had challenged the FBI and DEA’s reliance on broad, standardised explanations for withholding certain information.

The firm said the agencies should not be permitted to rely on generic privacy and law-enforcement exemptions without adequately explaining why the disputed material qualified for continued protection, particularly where related information had already been publicly disclosed.

It also highlighted the court’s consideration of a 1993 US Department of Justice civil asset-forfeiture filing involving funds held in an account in Tinubu’s name. That historical filing forms part of the public record cited during the FOIA litigation.

The firm argued that the existence of the public filing weakened the agencies’ ability to withhold identical information through broad claims of secrecy. It maintained that the court had required further explanations concerning disputed redactions and withheld records.

The court’s ruling, however, should not be interpreted as a finding that Tinubu committed drug trafficking or any other criminal offence. The litigation concerns the disclosure of government records under US transparency law, and the legality of withholding information. It is not a criminal prosecution of the Nigerian President.

The firm also criticised the DEA’s explanations for withholding portions of documents concerning investigative methods, including wiretaps and pen registers. It argued that the agency had not sufficiently justified all the redactions challenged by Greenspan.

According to the ruling’s published account, the agencies must provide additional explanations for certain disputed withholdings if they intend to continue withholding the material. The litigation therefore remains unresolved, and the outcome of the disclosure dispute will depend on the court’s assessment of the agencies’ further submissions and the applicable legal exemptions.

Another significant issue raised by the firm concerns the distinction between the court’s rejection of Greenspan’s request to question Tinubu and its consideration of the underlying records dispute.

The request for additional discovery related to alleged cyberattacks on Greenspan’s website. The court found that the proposed inquiry was not sufficiently relevant or proportionate to the central questions in the FOIA case, which concern the adequacy of the agencies’ searches and the legality of their withholding decisions.

The rejection of that discovery request did not resolve every dispute over the historical investigative records. Equally, the court’s refusal to approve all the agencies’ withholding arguments does not automatically mean the disputed records must be released in full.

The controversy has nevertheless intensified political exchanges in Nigeria, where the historical US investigation and related court filings have repeatedly featured in arguments over Tinubu’s past and his fitness for office.

Von Batten-Montague-York has called for greater scrutiny of the records and criticised the Presidency’s communication of the ruling. The firm’s statements are its own interpretation of the legal proceedings and should be distinguished from the court’s actual findings.

The Presidency, through its representatives, has maintained that the US litigation is a civil records-disclosure dispute rather than a criminal case against Tinubu. No court ruling in the present FOIA proceedings has established that the President is guilty of drug trafficking.

The latest development therefore leaves two separate questions before the public: whether US law enforcement agencies have adequately justified their continued withholding of historical records, and whether Nigerian officials have accurately represented the scope and implications of the court’s decision.

For a Presidency facing persistent political scrutiny, the most effective response is to address the documented legal developments clearly and accurately rather than allow competing political interpretations to dominate the debate.

The US court’s ruling has placed renewed pressure on the FBI and DEA to explain their handling of disputed records. But until further proceedings establish what information must be disclosed, claims that the judgment proves criminal wrongdoing or that it completely clears every question raised in the litigation would go beyond what the ruling establishes.