What began as a heated public confrontation between a US-based lobbying firm and officials linked to President Bola Tinubu’s administration is now threatening to move from social media and public statements into a federal courtroom in Washington.
Von Batten Montague-York, a United States-based lobbying and advisory firm working for former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, says it has been cleared to pursue a $36 million federal lawsuit against President Bola Tinubu and Femi Fani-Kayode over alleged threats of kidnapping and physical harm against its principal, Dr Karl Von Batten.
The firm said the proposed action would be filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, escalating a dispute that has grown increasingly bitter in recent weeks.
From political dispute to legal battle
According to the firm, the planned lawsuit stems from alleged threats which it attributes to Fani-Kayode.
Von Batten Montague-York has characterised the alleged threats as part of what it described as an organised criminal conspiracy involving the Nigerian Presidency.
The allegations have not been established by any court.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the firm said: “We have been cleared and authorized to proceed with a $36 million federal lawsuit against Nigerian President Bola Tinubu and Ambassador Femi Fani-Kayode in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”
The firm said it expected to file the complaint next week.
Why Tinubu is named
The proposed case could also open an unusual legal question concerning the extent to which a sitting foreign head of state can be sued in a US court.
Von Batten Montague-York said its case against Tinubu would test the limits of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and head-of-state immunity while he remains Nigeria’s president.
The firm said it intends to rely on a combination of District of Columbia tort law and US federal legislation, including the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act.
It also cited specific provisions of US law, including 28 U.S.C. §1605B and 18 U.S.C. §§2331 and 2333, as part of the legal basis for the proposed claims.
Fani-Kayode denies threat
The planned lawsuit follows a public clash between Fani-Kayode and Von Batten over the lobbying firm’s activities and its campaign concerning historical US records connected to allegations involving Tinubu.
TheCable reported that Fani-Kayode has denied threatening to kidnap or harm Von Batten. In a public response, he said he was not interested in killing or kidnapping the lobbyist and accused Von Batten of making allegations against the Nigerian president and government.
The dispute has unfolded largely in public, with both sides exchanging accusations and statements while the lobbying firm says it has been briefing US authorities about the alleged threats.
Immigration authorities could also be drawn in
The legal threat may not end with the proposed lawsuit.
Von Batten Montague-York said that after filing the case, it intends to engage immigration authorities in the United States, United Kingdom and European Union over the allegations.
The firm said it would ask whether Fani-Kayode’s travel or visa status should be reviewed, although any decision would ultimately rest with the relevant government agencies.
The bigger dispute behind the lawsuit
At the heart of the wider confrontation is Von Batten Montague-York’s campaign for the release of US government records relating to historical drug-trafficking allegations involving Tinubu.
The firm has previously sought records through Freedom of Information Act requests and other legal avenues and has publicly amplified its demands for the release of documents.
Fani-Kayode has pushed back against the campaign, challenging Von Batten to substantiate its claims and questioning the lobbyist’s credentials and motives.
You May Like: ‘Peter Obi Can Never Be President’ — Police Officer Sparks Controversy in Viral Video
The proposed $36 million lawsuit therefore represents a significant escalation in a dispute that has already moved across political, diplomatic and public-relations battlegrounds.
Lawsuit announced, but not yet before a judge
For now, however, the case remains a proposed legal action.
As of Wednesday, there was no confirmed filing in the US federal court docket. The $36 million claim and the firm’s assertion that it had been authorised to proceed remain based on its own announcement.
Whether the complaint is ultimately filed, how the court addresses questions of jurisdiction and immunity, and whether the claims survive legal challenges are matters that would have to be determined through the US judicial process.
For a dispute that began with public accusations, the next chapter could now unfold under the much stricter rules of a federal courtroom.