247ureports Washington Correspondent

.

.

.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Washington-based lobbying and advisory firm at the center of a long-running US court battle over President Bola Tinubu’s alleged drug-trafficking records has escalated its standoff with the Nigerian Presidency, filing an information referral with the FBI’s Washington Field Office and preparing a supplemental court submission accusing senior Nigerian officials of a coordinated campaign to disrupt its US advocacy work.

In a letter dated September 5, 2026, addressed to the FBI and signed by Dr. Karl Von Batten, Managing Partner of Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., the firm asked federal authorities to review what it described as “a pattern of conduct by officials associated with the Federal Government of Nigeria” directed at Von Batten and his firm. The referral explicitly stops short of alleging a specific crime. “I am not submitting this information because I have independently concluded that a federal crime has occurred, nor am I asking the FBI to accept my characterization of these events,” the letter states, asking instead that authorities determine for themselves whether the conduct carries “counterintelligence, foreign-influence, transnational-repression, harassment, interference, or other national-security significance” under US law.

Behind the Referral: A Widening Diplomatic-Legal Feud

The referral is the latest turn in a dispute that has simmered for months, tied to Von Batten-Montague-York’s role publicizing developments in Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. President, et al., a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. That case, originally filed by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, seeks the release of FBI and DEA records concerning historical drug-trafficking allegations against President Tinubu dating to the early 1990s, including a since-closed civil forfeiture matter involving roughly $460,000. Von Batten-Montague-York — which public FARA filings show is under a reported $1.2 million, twelve-month contract with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Tinubu’s leading 2027 rival — has for weeks published excerpts and characterizations of sealed and in-camera filings in the case, fueling a heated back-and-forth with Abuja.

That back-and-forth has drawn in an increasing number of senior officials. Presidential Special Adviser on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga has publicly disputed the firm’s characterization of the case, insisting it is a civil records dispute rather than evidence of criminal conduct, while Special Adviser Sunday Dare has demanded the firm produce evidence for what he called “fabricated, politically motivated” claims about classified intelligence. Most recently, Aviation and Aerospace Development Minister Festus Keyamo publicly weighed in after reports that Von Batten had deleted a social media post announcing his appointment by President Trump to the US Commission on Presidential Scholars. Von Batten-Montague-York alleged in response that the Nigerian government had repeatedly contacted the White House over the appointment, that the pressure was the reason the announcement was deleted, and that Von Batten had subsequently apologized to the White House for the resulting “inconvenience.” Those specific claims — the White House contacts and the reason for the deletion — currently rest on the firm’s own account and have not been independently corroborated by the White House or the Nigerian Presidency.

It is this sequence — three senior Nigerian officials commenting publicly on the firm’s activities within a short span of time — that Von Batten-Montague-York now characterizes as a “planned and coordinated” campaign. The firm has not published direct evidence of coordination between the three officials beyond the fact and timing of their public statements.

Two Fronts: A Court Filing and an FBI Referral

According to the firm’s public statements accompanying the images reviewed by 247ureports, Von Batten-Montague-York intends to pursue the matter on two separate tracks:

In court, the firm plans to submit “supplemental evidence” to Judge Beryl Howell in the underlying FOIA case, arguing that Tinubu’s legal team cannot simultaneously claim a privacy interest in the withheld records while the President’s own advisers and cabinet ministers publicly litigate the controversy in the press. A supplemental notice tied to that argument, filed by Aaron Greenspan in support of a proposed amicus curiae brief by Dr. Von Batten, has already surfaced in the docket, consistent with the images provided.

With the FBI, the firm’s referral asks the Bureau to independently assess whether the pattern — including the public criticism from Onanuga, Dare, and Keyamo, and the reported contacts with the White House over Von Batten’s commission appointment — rises to the level of transnational repression: a recognized FBI counterintelligence concern involving foreign governments that harass, intimidate, or otherwise target individuals inside the United States. The FBI has separately and publicly emphasized in recent months that it investigates transnational repression as a distinct national-security priority, though there is no indication yet that the Bureau has opened any inquiry specific to this referral.

The Presidency’s Position

The Nigerian Presidency has consistently rejected the firm’s framing of both the underlying FOIA case and its own officials’ conduct. Onanuga has maintained that the litigation is a routine civil records dispute rather than proof of wrongdoing, while Dare has accused Von Batten-Montague-York of using American legal proceedings to manufacture a political narrative ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 election, given the firm’s paid engagement by Atiku Abubakar. Neither Onanuga, Dare, nor Keyamo has publicly responded to the specific FBI referral or the “transnational repression” characterization as of this report.

What Remains Unverified

Several elements of the firm’s account remain, at this stage, unconfirmed by independent sources: whether the FBI referral was in fact submitted as depicted; the precise nature and content of the alleged White House contacts from Nigerian officials; and whether the public statements from three separate officials reflect coordinated action rather than three independent responses to a controversy already dominating Nigerian political discourse. The firm itself has been careful to frame its FBI submission as a request for independent review rather than an assertion of proven wrongdoing — a distinction that will likely shape how seriously US authorities, and observers in Nigeria, treat the claims in the days ahead.

The underlying FOIA litigation over Tinubu’s alleged FBI and DEA records remains pending before Judge Howell, with the case increasingly functioning as a proxy battleground in the run-up to Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election.