RE: Obono-Obla, Why Von Batten Cannot Be Dismissed in the Tinubu US Matter
By ABANIKANDA OLUMORO (UK)
I know somebody who knows Mr. Okoi Obono-Obla very well. They became close during the Buhari era, particularly around his trial (trouble) days, as he (the person I know) has always taken an interest in standing by those he believes have been unjustly persecuted until a court of competent jurisdiction determines otherwise.
Having given that background, it is important to say that his article, titled “PROPAGANDA VS REALITY: THE TRUTH ABOUT TINUBU’S U.S. COURT FILING,” strikes me more as an attempt to confuse the public and insult our collective intelligence by trying to rewrite what appears obvious regarding the US criminal investigation involving our sitting president in Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Let me begin by addressing his attempt to reduce Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., which he also correctly acknowledged to be a US lobbying and public affairs firm, to an interested party whose views should not be taken seriously.
Von Batten-Montague-York has never presented itself as a member of the US judiciary, nor has it claimed to be a judge. It is precisely what Mr. Obono-Obla acknowledged it to be: a lobbying firm. It has publicly been associated with advocacy on behalf of Atiku Abubakar, Nigeria’s former Vice-President and a presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), a leading opposition coalition party, ahead of the country’s next election.
How, exactly, is that sufficient justification for dismissing the firm’s position on the matter at hand?
You would have had a stronger argument if, for instance, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu did not also have lobbyists or public-affairs representatives working on matters concerning him in the United States.
Sorry, Mr. Obono-Obla, but during the administration of Joe Biden, can you remember the controversy over the existence or availability of records relating to Tinubu and allegations concerning heroin trafficking and money laundering in the United States? If such lobbying efforts were made on Tinubu’s behalf, that would not, by itself, establish the truth or falsity of the underlying allegations. But neither should the existence of lobbying on behalf of another politician automatically disqualify that lobbyist from being heard.
Lately, Tinubu has reportedly been seeking an audience with US President Donald Trump. Some may interpret such diplomatic engagement as an opportunity for Tinubu to demonstrate that he has nothing to hide and that he remains accepted at the highest levels of American government.
But an audience with a US president, by itself, cannot determine whether a criminal investigation existed, what its contents were, or whether any allegation against an individual has merit.
Another possibility is that the United States, facing challenges to its influence as the world’s most powerful country, could seek to use its relationship with Nigeria for strategic purposes. But that is a matter for political analysis and should not be confused with established fact.
Whatever the case, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records now being discussed have placed the issue squarely in the public domain. How the Trump administration will handle any matter involving Tinubu, and whether any political or diplomatic consideration will affect the handling of relevant records, remains something to watch.
At any rate, that is what lobbying is about: representation, advocacy and the pursuit of a client’s interests.
If you accept that lobbyists can work on behalf of Tinubu, how then can you present Von Batten-Montague-York to Nigerians—not necessarily Americans—as an interested party whose views must be dismissed simply because it is associated with Atiku?
As a lawyer, sir, it is important to appreciate the implications of providing incomplete or misleading information to the public, especially on a matter capable of damaging Nigeria’s image internationally. The controversy surrounding the president’s alleged links to drug-trafficking investigations in the United States is already attracting considerable attention.
Not only that, Mr. Obono-Obla, the president has also faced controversies surrounding his academic records.
Recall that, around 1999, Tinubu reportedly claimed in documents submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that he attended the University of Chicago. That claim was also reportedly contained in a sworn affidavit.
At the time, the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi challenged aspects of Tinubu’s academic credentials and alleged that a University of Chicago certificate attributed to him was forged. Recall also that Festus Keyamo, who is today a minister in the Tinubu administration, previously worked as a lawyer associated with Chief Gani Fawehinmi.
The matter generated considerable controversy and litigation. There was also an attack on Fawehinmi within the court premises in Ikeja, Lagos, during the period when Tinubu was governor of Lagos State.
Yet, up to the time of writing this article, questions remain about what government authorities did to fully address the allegations surrounding the matter.
How did the case eventually end?
That, sir, is a matter for lawyers and investigative journalists to revisit and verify from the court records.
My respected Nigerian figure, let me plead with you at this point: you have made your name and built a reputation for yourself. Do not allow this Tinubu matter in America to soil that reputation.
I may not know your hometown, but I know that you have one, and your family background is not under question. Your primary, secondary and university education is not generally the subject of the kind of controversy surrounding the president’s academic history. By submitting your Curriculum Vitae whenever required for an appointment, you have subjected your educational background to public scrutiny and accountability.
And the state you claim to come from has not, to my knowledge, generated the same kind of controversy over your identity.
Why this diversion?
In the build-up to the 2023 presidential election, Tinubu submitted credentials to INEC that identified Chicago State University. How did that happen?
Tinubu could have been expected, after more than two decades and following the death of Chief Gani Fawehinmi, to assume that Nigerians had forgotten the 1999 controversy over the University of Chicago. Yet his 2023 documentation again brought questions about his educational history to the forefront.
Jesus Christ of Nazareth!
Good enough, Chicago State University is not the University of Chicago. Likewise, the University of Lagos is not Chicago State University. The distinction between institutions is obvious and precisely why Nigerians became interested in examining the records associated with Tinubu’s academic claims.
Remember the legal efforts to prevent the release of his academic records in the United States?
Remember the argument that releasing the records would cause him irreparable harm?
The US court proceedings eventually resulted in orders requiring Chicago State University to provide information concerning Tinubu’s academic records. The university’s representatives also appeared and provided sworn evidence concerning the documents.
It was subsequently reported that certified copies of materials from the US proceedings were presented in the Nigerian legal battle over Tinubu’s eligibility and election.
When the matter reached the Nigerian Supreme Court, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal concerning the presentation and use of the US academic evidence, among other grounds, including issues relating to the timing and procedural basis of the evidence.
Have you forgotten these developments, sir?
This present matter is different entirely.
We are now discussing allegations surrounding a US criminal investigation and records involving federal law-enforcement agencies.
Tinubu also went to court in the United States to challenge the release of certain records, and those proceedings eventually resulted in the release or submission of records that are now being debated publicly.
One central argument attributed to Tinubu’s side has been that he was not criminally investigated for drug trafficking or money laundering in the United States.
Tinubu’s supporters and government officials have also argued that the case associated with him in the United States was civil rather than criminal.
The FBI records now being discussed, whether fully released or containing redactions, have therefore intensified the debate over the nature and scope of the investigation.
That distinction matters.
However, the mere fact that a person was the subject of an investigation does not, by itself, establish that the person committed a crime, was indicted, or should be convicted. An investigation is not the same thing as an indictment, and an indictment is not the same thing as a conviction.
This is precisely why the records should be allowed to speak for themselves.
Now, is a matter of this magnitude—one capable of damaging Nigeria’s image internationally—something Mr. Okoi Obono-Obla should brush aside as mere politicking simply because Atiku and Von Batten-Montague-York are involved?
No.
We Nigerians in the Diaspora say no.
We will take it seriously because, just as Atiku is a politician, Tinubu is also a politician. Just as Von Batten-Montague-York may be acting in the interests of Atiku, Tinubu may also have lobbyists and public-affairs representatives working on his behalf.
The existence of political interests on both sides does not make the underlying facts irrelevant.
So, sir, nobody is saying Tinubu will be arrested in America. Nobody is saying he was indicted for the alleged offences. Nobody should make claims that cannot be supported by the official records.
What Nigerians are asking is simpler: if there was a US investigation of such magnitude, what exactly did it establish? What do the FBI records contain? What was the status of the investigation? What allegations were made? What, if anything, did US authorities conclude?
Tinubu should be allowed to answer those questions fully.
As a Nigerian in the Diaspora, this is my position.
And I believe many Nigerians at home also want transparency on the matter.
No journalist or media organisation should participate in any conspiracy—real or imagined—to conceal relevant facts concerning Tinubu’s dealings with US authorities. Equally, no lawyer, politician or commentator should distort the story through legal technicalities or partisan arguments.
Nigeria should not be fed misinformation, whether in defence of or opposition to any political leader.
The world is watching.
If the United States has released information that enables Nigerians to make an informed judgment about their president, Nigerians should be free to examine that information and draw their own conclusions.
And if, after examining all the evidence, Nigerians decide to elect Tinubu again, that should be their informed democratic choice.
But if Nigerians are denied relevant information, history may judge the process differently.
The issue is therefore not Atiku versus Tinubu.
It is not Von Batten-Montague-York versus Okoi Obono-Obla.
It is not even opposition politics versus the ruling party.
It is about transparency, accountability and the right of Nigerians to know the facts surrounding allegations involving the person occupying the highest political office in the country.
A stitch in time saves nine.
