A Washington-based lobbying firm retained by African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has disclosed that it has begun distributing United States Department of Justice (DOJ) records relating to long-standing drug trafficking allegations against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to members of the Donald Trump administration, lawmakers in Congress and senior congressional aides.

The firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., revealed the development in a statement posted on X, saying the move followed a series of engagements with officials in Washington. According to the firm, many policymakers and government officials it interacted with were previously unfamiliar with the historical DOJ case linked to Tinubu, prompting efforts to circulate relevant court records and related documents.

Atiku, who is preparing for another presidential contest under the ADC platform, engaged the lobbying firm in March under a 12-month contract reportedly valued at $1.2 million. The agreement is aimed at enhancing his reputation in the United States, facilitating access to American policymakers and lawmakers, and countering what the contract describes as lobbying efforts by the Nigerian government.

In its statement, the lobbying firm said it had already begun sharing more than 60 pages of DOJ records detailing allegations that linked Tinubu to a heroin trafficking investigation conducted in the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The firm stated that the documents include DOJ court filings, supporting affidavits and federal court decisions, adding that it intends to ensure that the complete record of the case is brought to the attention of President Donald Trump and key officials in Washington.

As part of the effort, Von Batten-Montague-York also released a document 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, the Current President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

The document revisits allegations made by U.S. authorities in the early 1990s, claiming that a Nigeria-based heroin trafficking network imported narcotics into the United States and transported them to Chicago for distribution through a network of associates.

According to the chronology, individuals named in the case United States v. Funds in Account No. 263226700 et al., No. 93 C 4483 included Tinubu, Adegboyega Mueez Akande and Abiodun Agbele.

The document further states that federal investigators examined the activities of the alleged trafficking organisation between 1988 and 1991 and claimed that proceeds from the operation were deposited into bank accounts in the United States allegedly owned or controlled by Tinubu.

It alleges that multiple accounts were opened and used to receive and transfer funds investigators believed were linked to heroin trafficking proceeds. The chronology also identifies Akande as a long-time associate of Tinubu whom the DOJ alleged led the trafficking network and provided funds used to open one of the bank accounts under scrutiny.

Agbele, meanwhile, was described as an associate introduced to Tinubu through Akande. The document claims Agbele later became a cooperating witness after being arrested while allegedly selling heroin to an undercover law enforcement officer.

According to the records cited by the lobbying firm, the DOJ filed a civil forfeiture action in 1993 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking the seizure of funds it alleged were connected to drug trafficking activities or money laundering.

Advertisement

The matter was eventually resolved through a negotiated civil forfeiture settlement, under which a portion of the funds in question was forfeited to the U.S. government.

Beyond the original case, the chronology also highlights a more recent legal battle over access to federal records. It notes that journalist Aaron Greenspan initiated a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in 2023, seeking records from several U.S. agencies relating to the historical investigation.

According to the document, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled in 2025 that agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) could not rely on broad refusals to confirm or deny the existence of relevant records for parts of the request. The court subsequently directed the agencies to process responsive documents in accordance with FOIA requirements.

The litigation, the chronology notes, remains ongoing.

Von Batten-Montague-York said the court records, FOIA rulings and chronology have now been forwarded to several committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate for what it described as informational and oversight purposes.

The firm argued that the issue carries significance because of Nigeria’s strategic relationship with the United States and reports suggesting that President Tinubu is seeking a meeting with President Trump during the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly.

The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s 1993 forfeiture case is not new to Nigeria’s political landscape. The matter featured prominently during legal challenges that followed the 2023 presidential election, when former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar, then candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), sought to challenge Tinubu’s eligibility.

Both politicians argued before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that Tinubu should have been disqualified over the forfeiture of $460,000 in the United States in 1993.

However, the PEPC dismissed the argument, ruling that the petitioners failed to prove that Tinubu had been convicted of any criminal offence in the United States. The court further held that the forfeiture proceedings were civil rather than criminal in nature and found insufficient evidence to support claims that Tinubu provided false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by not disclosing the forfeiture.

With the lobbying campaign now extending into Washington’s political circles, the decades-old controversy has once again resurfaced, potentially placing renewed international attention on a matter that has repeatedly generated legal and political debate in both Nigeria and the United States.