US Court Filing Reveals Tinubu Govt Pays Lobbying Firm $750,000 Monthly
A filing before a United States federal court has alleged that the Nigerian government pays DCI Group AZ, LLC, an affiliate associated with Washington-based public affairs firm DCI Group, $750,000 monthly.
The allegation emerged in a legal dispute involving President Bola Tinubu and American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who is seeking permission to obtain additional information in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against US government agencies.
Greenspan submitted a request for judicial notice on October 8, 2026, in support of his effort to pursue limited discovery involving Tinubu.
The case concerns requests for US government records relating to an alleged federal investigation in the early 1990s involving Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele.
According to the filing, DCI Group AZ receives $750,000 per month from the Nigerian government, described in the document as the government of the intervenor, Tinubu.
The submission also alleges that an account managed by the DCI affiliate published a post attacking Greenspan on August 5, 2026.
However, the document does not establish that the Nigerian government ordered or funded the alleged online attack.
It also does not demonstrate that the reported monthly payment was connected to the incident.
Greenspan is seeking records relating to himself, the ongoing litigation and alleged attacks on his website, PlainSite.
His latest submission forms part of his attempt to obtain information he considers relevant to his claims.
In the filing, Greenspan referred to allegations concerning the activities of a Washington lobbying firm and the alleged use of contractors to obtain electronic information.
“Federal prosecutors have alleged that a Washington ‘public affairs’ and ‘lobbying’ firm engaged Israeli contractors whose operator(s) directed the hacking of electronic accounts belonging to targets of a project for the lobbying firm’s client, and that hacked data was then provided to the lobbying firm,” the filing said.
“The United States Department of Justice (filing openly in the United Kingdom and under seal in the United States), one defendant’s own counsel (again in the United Kingdom), and two national news organizations have all identified that firm as DCI Group.
“DCI Group AZ, LLC is paid $750,000 per month by Intervenor’s government, and on August 5, 2026 an account it manages published a post attacking Plaintiff in writing.”
The statements reflect allegations and arguments presented in the court filing.
They do not, by themselves, establish that DCI Group AZ carried out the alleged attacks on Greenspan’s website or that Tinubu was involved.
Filing Seeks Recognition of Public Records
Greenspan’s October 8 submission asks the court to take judicial notice of the existence and contents of public records attached to the filing as exhibits.
Judicial notice allows a court to recognise certain facts or records without requiring them to be established through the usual evidentiary process.
However, a request for judicial notice does not automatically mean the court has accepted the claims contained in the documents.
A separate one-page document submitted alongside Greenspan’s request is labelled a proposed order.
Although it contains language granting the request, the copy provided has no date or judicial signature.
It therefore does not establish that the judge approved the request.
The application is also separate from Greenspan’s substantive request for permission to pursue limited discovery involving Tinubu.
The court’s consideration of these filings does not amount to a finding that the allegations against the President or the lobbying firm have been proven.
Tinubu intervened in the case in October 2023, citing privacy interests relating to confidential tax records and federal law-enforcement documents.
His participation has since formed part of the dispute over whether Greenspan can obtain further information concerning the records he has requested.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration could not maintain blanket refusals to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed.
The judge, however, upheld the Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records.
The ruling addressed how the agencies responded to Greenspan’s information requests.
It did not establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu, nor did it order the unconditional release of all the records sought by the plaintiff.
