The firm, which was retained in March by African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar under a 12-month lobbying contract reportedly worth $1.2 million, disclosed the move in a post on X, saying it had started circulating more than 60 pages of DOJ documents after engaging officials in Washington. It also released a chronology of the 1993 forfeiture proceedings and subsequent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.
“Following discussions with members of the Donald Trump Administration, Congress, and senior congressional staff, we began providing more than 60 pages of The Justice Department documents concerning the DOJ’s allegations of Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s alleged involvement in a heroin trafficking investigation spanning the late 1980s and early 1990s.”
The firm added: “Many within the U.S. government were previously unaware of the DOJ’s allegations concerning Bola Tinubu. We are changing that. Drug trafficking has devastated communities across America, claiming thousands of lives and leaving countless families forever changed.”
It further stated: “Today, we are making public only the attached chronology summarizing the DOJ’s allegations. We fully intend to ensure that the complete collection of DOJ court filings, the supporting affidavit, and the related federal court decisions are brought to President Trump’s attention as soon as possible.”
The chronology released by the firm, 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,” outlines allegations contained in historical DOJ filings.
According to the document, the DOJ alleged that a Nigeria-based heroin trafficking organisation imported heroin into the United States and distributed it through associates in Chicago. It identified Tinubu, Adegboyega Mueez Akande and Abiodun Agbele as individuals named in the government’s forfeiture complaint, while stating that investigators alleged proceeds of the operation were deposited into US bank accounts controlled by Tinubu between 1988 and 1991.
The document also states that the DOJ filed a civil forfeiture action in 1993 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking the forfeiture of funds it alleged were proceeds of heroin trafficking or involved in money laundering. It said the case ended through a negotiated civil forfeiture settlement under which part of the funds was forfeited to the United States.
The chronology further notes that journalist Aaron Greenspan filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2023 seeking records from several federal agencies connected to the historical investigation. It adds that a US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in 2025 that the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other agencies could not rely on blanket refusals to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records for parts of the request and ordered them to process those records in accordance with FOIA.
According to the firm, the litigation remains ongoing. It said the chronology, court records and FOIA decisions are being shared with several House and Senate committees “for informational and oversight purposes” in light of Nigeria’s strategic relationship with the United States and reports that President Tinubu is seeking a meeting with President Trump during the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly.
Tinubu’s 1993 civil forfeiture case also featured during legal challenges to the outcome of Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election, with Atiku Abubakar and Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi arguing before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that he should have been disqualified.
However, the PEPC ruled that the petitioners failed to establish that Tinubu had been convicted of any criminal offence in the United States. The court also held that the forfeiture proceedings were civil in nature and that the evidence before it did not establish that Tinubu submitted false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by failing to disclose the forfeiture.