Atiku-hired US lobby firm submits Tinubu forfeiture records to Trump administration, congress

A Washington-based lobbying firm hired by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has disclosed that it has begun distributing documents relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s 1993 U.S. civil forfeiture case to officials in the Donald Trump administration, members of the U.S. Congress, and senior congressional staff.

The firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., said it is sharing more than 60 pages of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) records and court documents connected to a civil forfeiture case involving funds allegedly linked to narcotics trafficking.

According to the firm, the initiative follows meetings with U.S. government officials and congressional offices, during which it discovered that some officials were unfamiliar with the historical case.

In a statement posted on X, the lobbying firm said the documents were provided to ensure that relevant U.S. government records are available for review.

The firm was retained by Atiku in March under a 12-month lobbying contract reportedly worth $1.2 million. The agreement covers diplomatic engagement, advocacy, and promoting Atiku’s positions on issues affecting Nigeria-U.S. relations.

The documents include a chronology titled: “Background and Chronology of the 1993 U.S. Department of Justice Heroin-Proceeds Forfeiture Case and the 2023 FOIA Litigation Concerning Alleged Heroin Trafficking from Nigeria to the United States Involving Bola Ahmed Tinubu.”

According to the chronology, the DOJ’s 1993 civil forfeiture case stemmed from an investigation into an alleged drug trafficking network operating between Nigeria and the United States between 1988 and 1991.

The records reference the case United States v. Funds in Account No. 263226700 et al., filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, involving funds the U.S. government alleged were proceeds of narcotics trafficking or money laundering.

The documents identify Tinubu, Adegboyega Mueez Akande, and Abiodun Agbele as individuals mentioned in the government’s allegations. Investigators alleged that proceeds from a drug trafficking operation were deposited into bank accounts associated with Tinubu in the United States.

The chronology further states that the DOJ alleged Tinubu controlled multiple bank accounts, some of which were allegedly linked to proceeds of illegal activities. It also describes Akande as an associate allegedly connected to the investigation, while Agbele was identified as someone Tinubu said he knew through Akande.

The matter was eventually resolved through a civil settlement in 1993, under which part of the funds was forfeited to the U.S. government.

The documents also reference a 2023 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by journalist Aaron Greenspan, seeking access to records related to the investigation. According to the chronology, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled in 2025 that certain federal agencies could not rely on blanket refusals to confirm or deny the existence of records and ordered further processing of portions of the FOIA request. The litigation remains ongoing.

The lobbying firm said the materials are being shared with congressional committees for informational and oversight purposes because of Nigeria’s strategic relationship with the United States.

The 1993 forfeiture case also featured prominently during legal challenges to the outcome of Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election. Atiku Abubakar and Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi argued before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that the forfeiture proceedings affected Tinubu’s constitutional qualification to contest the election.

However, the PEPC rejected the argument, ruling that the petitioners failed to establish that Tinubu had been convicted of any criminal offence in the United States. The court further held that the forfeiture proceedings were civil—not criminal—in nature and found no evidence that Tinubu made false declarations to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) regarding the matter.