Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., said on September 2–3, 2026, that its founder and managing partner, Dr. Karl Von Batten, received what it described as an unsolicited offer from a “highly placed individual” who was allegedly connected to President Tinubu.

According to the firm, the alleged offer was intended to convince Von Batten to abandon its campaign concerning records from a 1990s Chicago investigation involving Tinubu.

The firm said Von Batten rejected the offer, retained copies of the communications and reported the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice. It also said some follow-up communications referred to disappearing messages.

However, the allegation remains unverified. The lobbying firm has not publicly identified the alleged intermediary, released screenshots or other documentary evidence of the purported offer, or provided independent evidence establishing that the individual was connected to Tinubu.

The development has attracted political attention because Von Batten-Montague-York is also a paid lobbyist for former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, one of Tinubu’s leading political opponents ahead of the 2027 election.

Publicly filed U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act documents show that the firm was retained by Atiku under a 12-month agreement valued at about $1.2 million. Its mandate includes efforts to strengthen Atiku’s reputational standing in the United States, facilitate meetings with American officials and counter narratives promoted by the Nigerian government.

The firm has also been actively circulating U.S. Department of Justice records relating to the 1990s case among members of the U.S. administration, Congress and congressional staff while supporting efforts to obtain additional records through Freedom of Information Act litigation.

The controversy centres on a documented U.S. civil forfeiture case from the early 1990s involving funds in bank accounts associated with Tinubu.

Federal investigators in the United States had investigated a Chicago-area heroin trafficking organisation involving several individuals. Subsequent court proceedings examined money allegedly connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering that had been deposited into U.S. accounts.

In 1993, the U.S. government filed a civil forfeiture action involving funds held in an account in Tinubu’s name at First Heritage Bank.

Under a settlement dated September 15, 1993, and a subsequent court order issued on October 4, 1993, by U.S. District Judge John A. Nordberg, $460,000 was forfeited to the U.S. government.

The case, however, was a civil forfeiture proceeding against property and was not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

Tinubu was never charged or convicted in connection with the investigation. He has consistently denied wrongdoing.

The distinction has become central to the renewed political debate, with supporters of Tinubu’s opponents pointing to the forfeiture as evidence requiring further scrutiny, while his supporters emphasise that the proceedings did not result in a criminal conviction against the president.

Tinubu’s media team has rejected the broader campaign surrounding the historical records, describing it as political speculation presented as classified information.

Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, has also pointed to Von Batten’s relationship with Atiku, arguing that the lobbyist’s claims should be understood within the context of partisan political activity.

The Tinubu camp has stressed that Von Batten is a private lobbyist and not a U.S. government official, intelligence officer or representative of the American government. Consequently, statements made by the firm do not constitute an official position of the U.S. government.

Von Batten’s appointment to the Commission on Presidential Scholars by U.S. President Donald Trump has also featured in discussions surrounding the controversy.

The appointment, however, does not confer significant policymaking or diplomatic authority. The Commission on Presidential Scholars is an unpaid panel of private citizens that helps select and honour outstanding American high school students through the Presidential Scholars Program.

The position carries no salary, diplomatic mandate or policymaking authority and does not require Senate confirmation.

Meanwhile, efforts to obtain additional records relating to the 1990s investigation are continuing in the United States.

The latest dispute therefore brings together two distinctly different issues: a documented $460,000 civil forfeiture from 1993 and a new allegation that an unidentified person purportedly connected to Tinubu offered $3 million to persuade a political lobbyist to stop discussing the historical records.

As of September 4, 2026, there is no independent confirmation publicly available that the alleged $3 million offer was made, that the intermediary identified by the lobbying firm exists in the claimed capacity, or that President Tinubu or anyone acting on his behalf authorised the alleged approach.

The bribery claim consequently remains an allegation made by the lobbying firm and has not been independently substantiated, while the 1993 civil forfeiture itself is documented in U.S. court records.

With political tensions rising ahead of the 2027 presidential election, the controversy is likely to remain part of the increasingly fierce battle between the Tinubu and Atiku camps over the president’s past, the credibility of U.S. records and the motives of those seeking to revive the issue.

Tinubu Challenges U.S. Release of 1990s Drug Records in FOIA Case

Author

Shola Akinyele

View all posts

Comments

Follow

Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., said on September 2–3, 2026, that its founder and managing partner, Dr. Karl Von Batten, received what it described as an unsolicited offer from a “highly placed individual” who was allegedly connected to President Tinubu.

According to the firm, the alleged offer was intended to convince Von Batten to abandon its campaign concerning records from a 1990s Chicago investigation involving Tinubu.

The firm said Von Batten rejected the offer, retained copies of the communications and reported the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice. It also said some follow-up communications referred to disappearing messages.

However, the allegation remains unverified. The lobbying firm has not publicly identified the alleged intermediary, released screenshots or other documentary evidence of the purported offer, or provided independent evidence establishing that the individual was connected to Tinubu.

The development has attracted political attention because Von Batten-Montague-York is also a paid lobbyist for former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, one of Tinubu’s leading political opponents ahead of the 2027 election.

The firm has also been actively circulating U.S. Department of Justice records relating to the 1990s case among members of the U.S. administration, Congress and congressional staff while supporting efforts to obtain additional records through Freedom of Information Act litigation.

The controversy centres on a documented U.S. civil forfeiture case from the early 1990s involving funds in bank accounts associated with Tinubu.

Federal investigators in the United States had investigated a Chicago-area heroin trafficking organisation involving several individuals. Subsequent court proceedings examined money allegedly connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering that had been deposited into U.S. accounts.

In 1993, the U.S. government filed a civil forfeiture action involving funds held in an account in Tinubu’s name at First Heritage Bank.

Under a settlement dated September 15, 1993, and a subsequent court order issued on October 4, 1993, by U.S. District Judge John A. Nordberg, $460,000 was forfeited to the U.S. government.

The case, however, was a civil forfeiture proceeding against property and was not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

Tinubu was never charged or convicted in connection with the investigation. He has consistently denied wrongdoing.

The distinction has become central to the renewed political debate, with supporters of Tinubu’s opponents pointing to the forfeiture as evidence requiring further scrutiny, while his supporters emphasise that the proceedings did not result in a criminal conviction against the president.

Tinubu’s media team has rejected the broader campaign surrounding the historical records, describing it as political speculation presented as classified information.

Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, has also pointed to Von Batten’s relationship with Atiku, arguing that the lobbyist’s claims should be understood within the context of partisan political activity.

The Tinubu camp has stressed that Von Batten is a private lobbyist and not a U.S. government official, intelligence officer or representative of the American government. Consequently, statements made by the firm do not constitute an official position of the U.S. government.

Von Batten’s appointment to the Commission on Presidential Scholars by U.S. President Donald Trump has also featured in discussions surrounding the controversy.

The appointment, however, does not confer significant policymaking or diplomatic authority. The Commission on Presidential Scholars is an unpaid panel of private citizens that helps select and honour outstanding American high school students through the Presidential Scholars Program.

The position carries no salary, diplomatic mandate or policymaking authority and does not require Senate confirmation.

Meanwhile, efforts to obtain additional records relating to the 1990s investigation are continuing in the United States.

Activists and researchers have pursued Freedom of Information Act requests involving agencies including the FBI, DEA and Department of Justice. While some records have been released, U.S. authorities have withheld other materials under statutory exemptions, with related litigation continuing.

As of September 4, 2026, there is no independent confirmation publicly available that the alleged $3 million offer was made, that the intermediary identified by the lobbying firm exists in the claimed capacity, or that President Tinubu or anyone acting on his behalf authorised the alleged approach.

The bribery claim consequently remains an allegation made by the lobbying firm and has not been independently substantiated, while the 1993 civil forfeiture itself is documented in U.S. court records.

With political tensions rising ahead of the 2027 presidential election, the controversy is likely to remain part of the increasingly fierce battle between the Tinubu and Atiku camps over the president’s past, the credibility of U.S. records and the motives of those seeking to revive the issue.

Author

Comments

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

add TELL to your Homescreen!