A long-running legal dispute over U.S. government records connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken another turn after a Washington-based political advisory and lobbying firm said it intends to place a video transcript before a federal court.
Von Batten-Montague-York said the proposed evidence relates to comments allegedly made by Adewale Tinubu, described by the firm as the Nigerian president’s nephew, at an All Progressives Congress (APC) political event.
The firm claims the video could become relevant to the ongoing debate over whether Tinubu can rely on privacy protections to prevent the release of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records sought through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
The development, however, does not establish that Tinubu committed drug-trafficking offences. The underlying allegations remain disputed, and Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.
What the new video is alleged to show
According to Von Batten-Montague-York, Adewale Tinubu is heard in the video discussing a Chicago legal matter and saying that he personally handled the case and encouraged Bola Tinubu to settle it.
The firm says this account conflicts with the historical court record it reviewed.
In its latest statement, the lobbying organisation said the official court record identifies Patrick S. Coffey as the attorney who represented Bola Tinubu in the relevant Chicago proceeding.
The firm argues that it has found no court filing, appearance, pleading or signature identifying Adewale Tinubu as counsel of record in that proceeding.
Von Batten-Montague-York therefore wants the video transcript added to its evidentiary materials in the U.S. federal litigation.
It argues that the discrepancy could be significant because the broader case concerns the extent to which information connected to the Tinubu investigation can remain protected from public disclosure.
Why the FBI and DEA records are being contested
The dispute stems from FOIA requests filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan.
Greenspan sought records from several U.S. government agencies concerning an alleged federal investigation into a drug-trafficking and money-laundering organisation that operated in the United States in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
A 2025 memorandum from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirms that Greenspan’s requests included records relating to Bola Tinubu and other individuals allegedly associated with the investigation. The requests included an FBI file concerning Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records covering the 1992–1993 period.
The case is formally known as Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH).
Tinubu was subsequently allowed to intervene in the case because of his claimed privacy interests in certain government records. The court’s 2025 opinion records that his intervention was based partly on concerns over confidential tax records and federal law-enforcement documents.
The important court ruling readers should know
One of the most significant developments in the litigation occurred in April 2025.
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could not continue relying on so-called Glomar responses to refuse to confirm or deny whether certain records existed.
A Glomar response is a mechanism under U.S. freedom-of-information law through which an agency says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of requested records because doing so could itself reveal protected information.
In the 2025 ruling, the court concluded that the FBI and DEA’s Glomar responses were improper and ordered those agencies to lift them, while sustaining the CIA’s Glomar response in the matters before the court.
That ruling did not amount to a finding that Tinubu was guilty of drug trafficking.
Instead, it concerned whether federal agencies could use the particular FOIA mechanism to refuse to acknowledge the existence of records.
That distinction is critical.
Tinubu’s legal team is still fighting disclosure
The legal battle has continued despite the 2025 ruling.
In a filing dated August 28, 2026, Tinubu’s legal team argued that disclosure of the requested investigative material could violate his privacy interests.
His lawyers maintained that the existence of scattered information in public records does not automatically eliminate an individual’s privacy interest in the remaining details of a government investigative file.
They also argued that the plaintiff’s objective was essentially to obtain government documents containing Tinubu’s name and urged the court to maintain applicable redactions and withholding under FOIA privacy provisions.
The position is important because it shows that the current dispute is no longer simply about whether records exist. It also concerns what portions of those records can legally be disclosed, what information can be redacted and what privacy protections continue to apply.
Where the proposed video fits into the dispute
Von Batten-Montague-York’s latest move is based on a different question: whether public statements about the Chicago matter could affect the privacy argument being advanced in court.
The firm contends that if people connected to the president publicly discussed aspects of the underlying proceedings, that could weaken an argument that the subject matter should remain entirely private.
That is a legal argument, rather than an established conclusion.
Whether the video ultimately affects the case will depend on how the federal court evaluates its authenticity, relevance and legal significance, as well as how the court applies FOIA’s privacy provisions to the particular records being sought.
The lobbying firm’s public statement should therefore not be confused with a court ruling.
What is actually established — and what remains an allegation?
The distinction matters in a politically charged case such as this.
Established by court records:
- Aaron Greenspan filed FOIA requests seeking records from U.S. federal agencies concerning investigations involving Tinubu and others.
- The requests included FBI and DEA records.
- The litigation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Tinubu was permitted to intervene in the case over privacy concerns.
- In April 2025, Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA’s Glomar responses were improper in the matters before the court and required those responses to be lifted.
- Tinubu’s legal team has continued to argue that some requested information should remain protected from disclosure.
Still alleged or disputed:
- That Tinubu participated in heroin trafficking.
- That particular FBI or DEA records establish criminal conduct by Tinubu.
- That the newly referenced video proves anyone deliberately falsified facts.
- That the video will result in the release of previously withheld records.
No responsible reading of the current court proceedings should turn allegations into findings of criminal guilt.
The Chicago connection
The controversy has its roots in a much older U.S. legal proceeding involving money that was subject to a civil forfeiture action in the early 1990s.
The federal court’s 2025 opinion records that the FOIA requests refer to a joint investigation involving the FBI, DEA, IRS and U.S. Attorney’s Offices concerning an international drug-trafficking and money-laundering investigation.
The litigation has consequently become a battle over historical government records that are more than three decades old but remain politically relevant because of Tinubu’s current position as Nigeria’s president.
The newly cited video adds another layer because it allegedly concerns how the Chicago proceedings were publicly described by a person connected to Tinubu.
Why the latest development matters
The immediate significance of the development is not that a new criminal case has been brought against Tinubu.
Rather, it could affect the continuing public-records battle surrounding historical FBI and DEA material.
If the video is formally submitted and accepted as evidence, the court could be asked to consider whether the public discussion of the underlying events has any bearing on the privacy interests asserted by Tinubu.
The court, however, will ultimately determine the legal weight of the material.
The episode also illustrates how an old U.S. investigation has evolved into a wider political and transparency dispute involving Nigeria’s presidency, American federal agencies, FOIA law and competing claims about public interest and individual privacy.
What happens next?
The next important development will be the court’s treatment of the parties’ competing arguments over the FBI and DEA records.
The proposed video evidence could become part of that process if it is properly submitted and considered by the court.
Readers should also watch for:
- Whether the video transcript is formally filed as an evidentiary exhibit.
- Whether Tinubu’s legal team challenges its authenticity or relevance.
- Whether the federal court orders additional disclosure or permits further redactions.
- Whether the FBI and DEA release additional responsive material following the court’s earlier rulings.
- Whether subsequent court filings provide further information about the historical investigation.
For now, the safest conclusion is that the legal battle over the records remains unresolved.
The appearance of a purported video transcript may intensify the dispute, but it does not by itself prove the allegations against President Tinubu.
The case remains a fight over government records, privacy rights and the public’s access to information about a matter that dates back more than 30 years.
Kindly Share:
Discover more from LMSINT MEDIA
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.