morganable politics/Governance
Dare said the Presidency’s attention had been drawn to renewed lobbying efforts in Washington surrounding decades-old records linked to Tinubu, particularly those relating to a civil forfeiture case in the 1990s
KaNo —
The Presidency on Tuesday dismissed reports linked to a United States-based lobbying firm engaged by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, describing the development as a politically driven attempt to stir controversy ahead of the 2027 general elections.
In a statement issued in Abuja, the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, criticised the activities of the Washington-based firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., accusing it of presenting political narratives as though they were official intelligence reports from the United States government.
The statement, titled “Speculation as Classified Information: Atiku’s $1.2 million Lobbying Gamble Exposed,” alleged that the firm’s campaign regarding historical United States records connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was part of a broader political strategy aimed at discrediting the Nigerian leader.
Dare said the Presidency’s attention had been drawn to renewed lobbying efforts in Washington surrounding decades-old records linked to Tinubu, particularly those relating to a civil forfeiture case in the 1990s.
Presidency Rejects Reports
He argued that the reports being circulated did not reflect the official position of the US government but were instead crafted public relations materials.
“The incendiary press releases being carefully churned out from Washington are public relations propaganda sheets passed off as the view of the U.S. Government. They are not,” Dare stated.
According to him, filings under the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act indicated that Atiku had contracted the lobbying firm on a 12-month retainer reportedly valued at $1.2 million.
He said the arrangement underscored what he described as a calculated attempt to weaponise historical legal records for political gain ahead of the next electoral cycle.
Dare challenged the credibility of the claims being circulated by the lobbying firm, insisting that they lacked verifiable evidence.
He called on those behind the reports to produce what they described as classified intelligence and to disclose their sources.
“Sane minds must categorically dismiss these reports as fabricated, politically motivated, and entirely unsupported by evidence. The report presents no intelligence document, no named Western official, and no evidence of any exchange involving Nigeria’s secrets or resources,” he said.
“It is nothing more than political speculation packaged as classified information. We demand that they produce the so-called ‘highly classified intelligence report,’ identify their unnamed sources, and provide tangible evidence for their wild allegations.”
Presidency’s Question Credibility Of Lobbying Firm
The presidential aide further questioned the credibility of the lobbying firm’s leadership, particularly its founder, Karl Von Batten. Dare described him as a private commercial lobbyist whose views could not be equated with that of the US government or its institutions.
“Dr Karl Von Batten’s comments represent solely the position of an individual associated with Atiku-linked political interests, not the U.S. government or President Donald Trump,” he added.
The controversy centres on long-standing records held by US federal agencies relating to Tinubu, including a civil forfeiture proceeding in the 1990s involving approximately $460,000 forfeited to US authorities.
The issue has resurfaced in recent months amid ongoing litigation under the US Freedom of Information Act, which seeks the release of additional documents.
Legal proceedings in the United States have drawn attention to whether certain portions of the records should remain redacted.
While thousands of pages have already been released, some sections are being withheld by US authorities on the grounds of protecting law enforcement methods, sources, and personnel.
A member of Tinubu’s legal team in the United States, Wole Afolabi, has defended efforts to maintain those redactions, arguing that they are consistent with established legal protections under US law.
“This matter has been going on for quite some time, and the DEA and other government agencies have produced documents and made them available,” he said.
“Now, what is being requested is that documents should be unredacted before they are handed over. The way the system works is not what anyone wants, but what the law stipulates.”he added.
He added that failing to utilise available legal protections would amount to professional negligence on the part of Tinubu’s legal representatives.
“It would amount to professional malpractice on our part if we do not take advantage of what the law offers,” Afolabi said.
Lawyer Dismisses Claim
The senior lawyer also dismissed suggestions that US authorities were deliberately withholding documents to shield Tinubu.
According to him, filings by the US Department of Justice indicated that the redactions were intended to safeguard investigative methods rather than protect any individual.
“In one of the recent filings, it was clearly stated that their concern is about the methodology by which information is gathered. No mention was made of any protection being offered to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu,” he explained.
Afolabi further argued that the absence of any criminal indictment against Tinubu in the United States was significant, noting that a civil forfeiture proceeding does not equate to a finding of criminal guilt.
“If he was culpable, he simply would have been indicted. There is no shortcut around it,” he said.
According to him, legal ethics prevent disclosure of confidential communications between a lawyer and client.
“Unfortunately, I cannot divulge any information that my client has disclosed to me confidentially. It is taken very seriously here, and one can lose one’s licence very easily,” he said.
On whether Tinubu had ever been investigated by US agencies such as the FBI or the Drug Enforcement Administration, Afolabi maintained that being the subject of an investigation does not imply guilt.
“Anyone can be a subject of investigation. That is just how it goes. There is a presumption of innocence,” he noted.
He added that the mere appearance of a person’s name in law enforcement records should not be interpreted as proof of criminal involvement, stressing that such records often contain preliminary or inconclusive information.
The Presidency’s latest response signals a renewed pushback against opposition efforts to revive longstanding controversies around Tinubu’s past, as political tensions gradually build ahead of the 2027 elections.
