President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has asked a US federal court to grant him the same extended deadline that government lawyers requested in a case concerning the possible release of records tied to old drug-trafficking allegations against him.
Through his legal team, Tinubu filed a notice joining a request by the US Department of Justice for a 10-day extension to respond to a pending motion for summary judgment. The filing was submitted to the US District Court for the District of Columbia and made public by Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., an American lobbying and policy advisory firm working on behalf of former Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar.
In their submission, Tinubu’s attorneys asked that his response schedule stay aligned with that of the other defendants in the case, effectively requesting the same 10-day extension the DOJ had sought. The notice was signed by lawyers Christopher W. Carmichael and Victor P. Henderson of the firm Henderson Parks, LLC.
Court records show the plaintiff objected to the extension request, while the defendants did not. Despite this, presiding Judge Beryl Howell ultimately denied the request for additional time, according to details later published by Von Batten-Montague-York.
Background: A Three-Year-Old Records Dispute
The case at the center of this filing is Aaron Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, et al., Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH), a lawsuit that has been working its way through the courts for more than three years. It concerns efforts to obtain government-held records related to past investigations and allegations linking Tinubu to drug-trafficking activity.
Von Batten-Montague-York has been openly critical of the extension request, suggesting it could create room for political lobbying efforts in Washington before the records issue is resolved. The firm has also claimed that opponents of disclosure might invoke arguments about US-Nigeria diplomatic and security ties to justify withholding the documents. It’s worth noting these are the firm’s own characterizations and have not been verified or endorsed by the court.
The 1993 Forfeiture Case
The renewed attention on this records dispute has also revived interest in an older matter: a $460,000 civil asset-forfeiture case involving funds once held under Tinubu’s name in the United States. That case has previously been connected in reporting to a federal investigation into a Chicago-based heroin trafficking operation active in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
In 1993, a US District Court ordered that the funds be forfeited to the federal government. Importantly, forfeiture proceedings target property, not individuals — this was a civil action against the money itself, not a criminal case brought against Tinubu personally.
Tinubu has repeatedly and publicly denied any connection to drug trafficking. His legal representatives emphasize that he has never been arrested, indicted, arraigned, or convicted on any drug-related charge in the United States.
What This Filing Does and Doesn’t Mean
It’s worth being precise about what this latest development represents: a dispute over scheduling and the release of government records — not a ruling on guilt or innocence. The underlying allegations remain unresolved and contested, and this filing doesn’t change that legal status either way.
With Judge Howell having rejected the request for more time, the case moves forward, and both sides are now expected to proceed under the court’s original deadlines. Further filings and developments are anticipated as the litigation continues.
