The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has accepted and docketed fresh filings submitted by Von Batten-Montague-York in the ongoing legal battle over US government records linked to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The Washington-based political advisory and lobbying firm said its Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Supplemental Notice of Evidentiary Exhibits have now been formally entered into the court record.
Von Batten-Montague-York announced the development in a statement posted on its verified X account.
The firm said the documents were accepted by the US District Court for the District of Columbia and are now before the court for consideration.
The case is titled Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., with case number 1:23-cv-01816-BAH.
The firm’s latest filing centres on Tinubu’s privacy claims and public statements made by Nigerian government officials concerning the records at the heart of the dispute.
Von Batten-Montague-York said the new material is intended to draw the court’s attention to what it described as a contradiction between the Nigerian government’s public discussion of the matter and Tinubu’s attempt to protect the records from disclosure on privacy grounds.
“We are happy to announce that our Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Supplemental Notice of Evidentiary Exhibits have been officially accepted and docketed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
“Both submissions have now been officially entered on the federal docket in Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH. We thank President Tinubu, his advisers, and his ministers for refusing to stop digging themselves into a hole.
“You cannot demand privacy in a U.S. federal court while publicly litigating the same controversy and attacking those advocating for disclosure.
“We are very pleased with this outcome because, regardless of whether the Court ultimately grants or denies our Motion for Leave, our submissions are now on the docket, and the Court has before it evidence concerning public statements by President Tinubu’s officials and relatives about the underlying controversy, as well as their public mischaracterisations of facts relating to the case,” the firm said.
The acceptance of the filings, however, does not mean that the court has agreed with the arguments contained in them.
The firm is seeking permission to participate in the proceedings as an *amicus curiae*, a legal term for a “friend of the court”.
Such a filing allows a person or organisation that is not a direct party to a case to provide information or arguments that may assist the court.
The Presidency has maintained that the matter is a civil dispute involving requests for access to US government records. It has also stressed that no US court has convicted Tinubu of criminal wrongdoing.
The underlying case was brought by Greenspan after he sought records from US agencies under the Freedom of Information Act.
The requests concern records associated with Tinubu and other individuals and have involved agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration.
Tinubu later became involved in the litigation after his legal representatives entered an appearance in the case.
The proceedings have since focused heavily on whether records sought by Greenspan should be released, withheld or redacted.
A 2025 ruling by US District Judge Beryl A. Howell addressed the government’s earlier use of so-called Glomar responses, under which an agency may refuse to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist.
The litigation has subsequently continued over access to records and the exemptions being relied upon to keep some material from public disclosure.
The latest intervention by Von Batten-Montague-York is particularly focused on the privacy argument.
The firm contends that public comments by Nigerian government officials about the records should be considered by the court when determining how much weight should be given to Tinubu’s privacy interests under the Freedom of Information Act.
In September, the Nigerian Presidency publicly addressed the controversy and described the proceedings as a records-access dispute rather than a criminal prosecution of the President.
The statement prompted a fresh response from Von Batten-Montague-York, which accused the Presidency of presenting the matter inaccurately and announced plans to seek permission to file an amicus brief.
The firm subsequently submitted its motion and supporting material.
COURTESY: PoliticsNigeria
