The ongoing legal dispute over the release of FBI and DEA records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken a fresh turn, with U.S.-based lobbyist Dr. Karl Von Batten seeking permission to participate in the case as an amicus curiae.
Von Batten, who has been engaged by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as a U.S. lobbyist, filed the application on Friday, September 4, 2026, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case, Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, et al., is being heard by Judge Beryl A. Howell under Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, with Tinubu participating as an intervenor.
In his motion, Von Batten asked the court for leave to file an amicus curiae brief — a submission by a non-party intended to assist the court on issues relevant to a case.
His application followed a September 3 statement issued by the Nigerian Presidency through Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, addressing the ongoing FOIA litigation.
Von Batten said the statement specifically mentioned him, characterised his relationship with Atiku and challenged his public commentary concerning the lawsuit.
He argued that this gave him a “direct and particular interest” in ensuring that the court had the complete official statement and an accurate understanding of its potential relevance to the issues before it.
Importantly, Von Batten clarified that he was not seeking to become a party to the litigation.
Rather, he wants the court to allow him to submit a narrowly focused brief examining whether the Presidency’s September 3 statement has implications for the privacy interests being asserted by Tinubu under FOIA Exemption 7(C).
The application comes shortly after Tinubu’s August 28 response, in which the President asserted substantial privacy interests under FOIA Exemption 7(C) and the Privacy Act.
According to Von Batten, the September 3 State House statement addressed the FBI and DEA records at the centre of the dispute, including the agencies’ production of 399 pages, the exemptions relied upon to withhold information and Tinubu’s invocation of Exemption 7(C).
He said his proposed brief would consider whether the Presidency’s voluntary public discussion of the subject matter of the litigation could affect the “nature and weight” of the privacy interests being asserted.
Von Batten, however, stressed that he was not arguing that the State House statement automatically waived every privacy protection available to Tinubu or independently defeated all the FOIA exemptions invoked by the U.S. government.
FBI Investigation Under Scrutiny
The proposed filing also focuses on the broader public-interest considerations surrounding the FOIA request.
Von Batten cited an FBI declaration stating that the records were compiled in connection with an investigation involving multiple individuals over alleged drug-trafficking crimes.
He argued that disclosure of reasonably segregable information could help shed light on the actions of U.S. federal law-enforcement agencies, including how they conducted and documented the investigation and subsequently handled the records.
The motion said the proposed brief would address “what federal law-enforcement agencies did, how they conducted and documented the investigation, and how they subsequently processed and withheld the resulting records.”
Von Batten further argued that his participation was warranted because none of the existing parties represented his particular interests arising from the September 3 State House statement, which expressly mentioned and characterised him.
“The September 3 Statehouse Statement was issued after the principal August 28 filings presently before the Court and specifically identifies and characterizes Proposed Amicus by name,” the motion stated.
He also maintained that the application was timely because it was prompted by an official statement issued only on September 3, six days after Tinubu’s August 28 court filing, and that allowing the proposed submission would not delay the resolution of the pending motions.
Greenspan Opposes Von Batten’s Application
The filing disclosed that Greenspan opposes Von Batten’s request to submit the proposed amicus curiae brief.
According to Von Batten, Greenspan argued that the proposed filing did not appear to comply with the court’s rules.
Greenspan also objected to the inclusion of the Nigerian Presidency’s assertion that he works with Nigerian political figures, describing the claim as false, according to the motion.
Von Batten said he had also requested the positions of the U.S. government defendants and Tinubu regarding his application but had received no response from either side as of the time of filing.
He subsequently urged Judge Howell to grant him leave to file the proposed brief.
The application adds a new dimension to the closely watched FOIA dispute, which centres on the release, redaction and withholding of records held by U.S. federal law-enforcement agencies and the competing privacy and public-interest considerations before the court.
