US COURT FILING PUTS NIGERIA’S $750,000-A-MONTH DCI LOBBYING CONTRACT UNDER FRESH SCRUTINY

A new filing in a United States federal court has drawn fresh attention to a multimillion-dollar lobbying contract between the Nigerian government and Washington public affairs firm DCI Group, with transparency activist Aaron Greenspan telling the court that an affiliate of the firm is being paid $750,000 every month by the government linked to President Bola Tinubu. The filing, submitted as part of Greenspan’s long-running Freedom of Information Act litigation over U.S. government records connected to Tinubu and an alleged federal investigation dating back to the early 1990s, also refers to an online account managed by the DCI affiliate that published material attacking Greenspan. However, the filing does not prove that Tinubu, the Nigerian government or DCI Group ordered or financed cyberattacks against Greenspan’s website, and no court has made such a finding.

The $750,000 monthly lobbying figure is not merely an allegation created by Greenspan. U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act records confirm that DCI Group AZ, LLC registered to represent the Republic of Nigeria through Aster Legal and disclosed a contract requiring a monthly retainer of $750,000, payable in two six-month installments of $4.5 million each. The agreement identifies the foreign principal as the Republic of Nigeria, says the registrant represents the executive branch and names National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu as the Nigerian official with whom the firm engages. The contract therefore carries a potential annual value of $9 million if maintained for a full year, placing it among the more expensive known Nigerian government lobbying arrangements in Washington.

The official FARA filing says DCI Group was retained to help Nigeria communicate its efforts to protect Christian communities and maintain U.S. support for countering jihadist groups and other destabilizing forces in West Africa. Subsequent filings show that the firm continued producing public-affairs materials on behalf of the Republic of Nigeria through Aster Legal throughout 2026, meaning the relationship was active well beyond the initial registration. That documentation is important because it separates one part of the current controversy from another: the lobbying relationship and fee structure are supported by official U.S. disclosure records, while Greenspan’s attempt to connect the firm to alleged online attacks against him remains disputed and unproven.

Greenspan’s latest filing was submitted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his case against the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and other federal agencies. The lawsuit seeks access under the Freedom of Information Act to records that Greenspan says relate to a historical federal investigation involving Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele. Tinubu intervened in the litigation in 2023, citing privacy interests in confidential tax and law-enforcement records, and the dispute has since expanded into arguments over how much additional information Greenspan should be permitted to obtain through limited discovery.

In the latest submission, Greenspan asks the court to take judicial notice of public records that he says are relevant to his effort to obtain additional discovery. His filing states that DCI Group AZ, LLC receives $750,000 a month from the government of the intervenor, referring to Nigeria, and that an account managed by the firm published a written attack against him on August 5, 2026. He also points to separate allegations by U.S. federal prosecutors concerning a Washington lobbying firm that allegedly engaged Israeli contractors whose operators hacked electronic accounts connected to a client project, with stolen information then allegedly passed back to the lobbying firm.

Greenspan argues that public filings and reporting identify DCI Group as the firm involved in that separate matter, but the legal significance of that connection remains unresolved. His submission does not establish that the alleged hacking activity was conducted for the Nigerian government, that Nigeria paid for it, or that Tinubu had any knowledge of it. It also does not demonstrate that DCI Group was responsible for the denial-of-service attacks Greenspan says targeted PlainSite, the legal-research website he operates. Those distinctions are central because the existence of a paid lobbying relationship does not, by itself, prove that every action associated with the lobbyist was directed or financed by the foreign government client.

Greenspan says PlainSite has experienced repeated cyberattacks and has sought permission from the court to question Tinubu and obtain documents he believes could shed light on who was responsible. In previous filings, he referred to technical records from his internet-service provider showing very high levels of hostile traffic and large numbers of blocked source addresses. He has also argued that some attacks appeared around important filing deadlines in the litigation. The timing may be relevant to his suspicions, but timing alone does not establish attribution, and the filings reviewed so far do not identify a person, organization or government as the proven source of the attacks.

Tinubu’s legal position has been that Greenspan lacks independent evidence linking the president or people acting on his behalf to those incidents. Greenspan, in response, has argued that limited discovery would allow straightforward questions to be answered and has pointed to the government lobbying relationship as part of the context he wants the court to consider. The judge has not ruled that his theory is correct, and the request for judicial notice should not be confused with a judicial determination accepting the factual allegations contained in every attached document.

That procedural distinction is especially important because one of the documents filed alongside Greenspan’s request is a proposed order. The copy circulating publicly contains language that would grant the request, but it does not carry a judge’s signature or date and therefore does not show that the court has approved it. A proposed order is routinely submitted by parties in federal litigation as suggested language for a judge to use if a motion is granted; it has no operative effect unless the court actually enters it.

The underlying FOIA case has already produced one important ruling. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration could not rely on blanket refusals to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records in the way they had done, while allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to maintain its refusal. That ruling addressed how federal agencies responded to Greenspan’s records requests. It did not find Tinubu guilty of a crime, establish that he was responsible for any historical criminal conduct or require unconditional release of every record Greenspan sought.

The latest lobbying disclosure adds a different dimension to the litigation because it concerns current Nigerian government spending rather than the historical records at the heart of the original FOIA requests. U.S. FARA records show DCI Group AZ, LLC registered the Republic of Nigeria through Aster Legal as a foreign principal in December 2025 and identified the executive branch as the government entity represented. The contract says DCI will assist Nigeria in communicating its actions to protect Christian communities and maintain U.S. support against jihadist groups and other destabilizing actors, making public diplomacy and perception management central to the assignment.

The fee structure is substantial. The agreement requires a monthly retainer of $750,000 but structures payment as two $4.5 million installments covering six months each. Over 12 months, that would amount to $9 million, excluding any separate arrangements not contained in the disclosed contract. The scale of the expenditure is likely to generate political scrutiny in Nigeria, where opposition parties and civil-society organizations routinely question the cost and transparency of overseas lobbying contracts, particularly when public finances are under pressure and households face significant economic hardship.

Foreign governments are legally permitted to hire American lobbying, public-relations and strategic-communications firms, and such arrangements are common in Washington. FARA does not prohibit foreign governments from attempting to influence U.S. policy or public opinion; instead, it requires agents representing foreign principals in covered political or public-relations activities to register and disclose information about the relationship, compensation and work performed. DCI Group’s registration therefore does not imply illegality. On the contrary, the public availability of the contract is a consequence of the disclosure regime designed to make such foreign influence activity transparent.

What makes the present situation more sensitive is the overlap between that legitimate lobbying relationship and Greenspan’s separate allegations about hostile online activity. His court filing tries to persuade the judge that the firm’s relationship with the Nigerian government, its management of online accounts supporting Nigeria’s messaging and allegations involving DCI in an unrelated hacking case justify limited discovery. Whether the court agrees that those facts are sufficient to permit additional questioning remains unresolved.

The government-linked communications effort itself is visible in FARA records. Material filed with the U.S. Justice Department shows a “Secure Nigeria” online presence managed by DCI Group AZ on behalf of the Republic of Nigeria through Aster Legal. A YouTube disclosure associated with that campaign states directly that the account is managed by DCI Group AZ for Nigeria and points viewers to the Justice Department’s FARA records. That provides clear evidence of a structured online public-relations campaign supporting Nigeria’s messaging in the United States, but it does not show that the campaign engaged in unlawful hacking or coordinated cyberattacks.

The distinction between public advocacy and covert digital interference will likely be central if Greenspan is permitted to pursue discovery. Lobbying firms regularly manage websites, social-media campaigns, advertising, media outreach and strategic messaging for clients. Those activities are lawful when properly disclosed. Cyberattacks, unauthorized access to electronic accounts or efforts to disable websites would fall into an entirely different legal category and would require independent evidence tying specific actors to those actions.

Greenspan’s filing also arrives amid broader litigation involving DCI Group and political actors connected to Nigeria. Premium Times reported that DCI has separately rejected allegations made in a $57 million U.S. lawsuit involving Tinubu, the Nigerian government, former aviation minister Femi Fani-Kayode and the firm. That case is distinct from Greenspan’s FOIA litigation and should not be conflated with it, but the overlapping disputes have placed the Washington lobbying firm under unusually intense scrutiny at a time when Nigerian political actors are spending heavily on U.S. advocacy.

The use of foreign lobbyists has become increasingly important in Nigerian politics because decisions made in Washington can affect sanctions, security assistance, investment, human-rights policy and diplomatic perceptions. Nigeria has faced particular scrutiny in the United States over religious violence, terrorism, governance and security cooperation, creating strong incentives for the government to shape how lawmakers, officials and American media understand developments inside the country. The DCI contract explicitly identifies Christian-community protection and U.S. support against jihadist groups as key parts of its mandate, showing that the government viewed those issues as strategically important enough to justify a multimillion-dollar communications campaign.

Supporters of such lobbying arrangements can argue that Nigeria, like many foreign governments, needs professional representation in Washington to counter misinformation, maintain security partnerships and ensure its perspective reaches policymakers. Critics are likely to focus instead on the extraordinary cost of the contract and ask whether the same objectives could be achieved more efficiently through Nigeria’s embassy, diplomatic corps and existing government communications structures. The legal filings themselves do not resolve that policy debate, but the disclosed $750,000 monthly figure gives it a concrete financial basis.

The identity of the intermediary is also relevant. The FARA filing lists the foreign principal as the Republic of Nigeria through Aster Legal, with a Kaduna address, while identifying National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu as the Nigerian official with whom the registrant engages. That structure does not make Aster Legal the ultimate foreign principal; the filing explicitly categorizes the foreign principal as a government of a foreign country and identifies Nigeria’s executive branch as the branch represented.

That official documentation means reporting should be careful not to describe the $750,000 amount merely as Greenspan’s unsupported allegation. His filing repeats the figure, but the underlying lobbying contract itself independently confirms the retainer. The genuinely disputed issue is whether the relationship has any connection to the alleged attacks on Greenspan’s website or other online activity he considers abusive. No public evidence reviewed by VNTV establishes that link, and no court has ruled that Tinubu or the Nigerian government directed such activity.

The same caution applies to Greenspan’s historical FOIA litigation. His case concerns requests for records relating to an alleged investigation from decades ago, but litigation over the existence or release of records is not the same as a criminal case against Tinubu. The April 2025 ruling required federal agencies to reconsider aspects of their refusal to acknowledge responsive records but did not establish criminal liability. Any reporting suggesting that the lawsuit itself proves historical wrongdoing would therefore go beyond what the court has found.

The new filing instead creates a contemporary transparency issue. The Nigerian government is spending up to $750,000 a month under a disclosed Washington lobbying contract, and that relationship now appears in litigation where the president is personally an intervenor. Greenspan wants the court to consider that relationship when deciding whether he should be allowed to seek additional information. Whether the lobbying contract proves anything relevant to his cyberattack claims will depend on the evidence, not the size of the fee or the political sensitivity of the client.

For Tinubu’s administration, the immediate political challenge will likely be explaining the purpose, cost and results of the lobbying arrangement. A $9 million annualized contract is substantial even by Washington lobbying standards, and opposition figures may question the use of public resources at a time when Nigerians are facing high fuel prices, wage pressure and rising living costs. The government can respond that protecting Nigeria’s international reputation and preserving U.S. security cooperation carry strategic value that is difficult to measure solely through the monthly retainer.

DCI Group may also face pressure to clarify the nature of the online accounts it manages for Nigeria and separate its disclosed public-affairs work from the hacking allegations referenced by Greenspan. The firm’s FARA records demonstrate active communications work on Nigeria’s behalf, but public materials do not establish any connection between that work and attacks on PlainSite. Until documentary or forensic evidence establishes such a connection, the two issues should remain distinct.

The court will ultimately decide whether Greenspan’s materials justify limited discovery, including possible questions to Tinubu or document requests involving DCI. If permission is granted, that could produce additional information about the relationship between the government, the lobbying firm and the online activity Greenspan is examining. If permission is denied, the litigation will continue within the narrower FOIA framework unless another procedural avenue emerges.

What is already established is that Nigeria has an expensive, officially disclosed lobbying relationship with DCI Group AZ. The U.S. Justice Department records show a $750,000 monthly retainer, structured as two $4.5 million payments over a 12-month period, and identify the Nigerian executive branch as the foreign government represented. What is not established is that those payments financed attacks on Greenspan, that Tinubu ordered any cyber activity or that the lobbying firm committed wrongdoing on Nigeria’s behalf.

That distinction is central to the significance of Friday’s development. Greenspan has succeeded in bringing the lobbying contract into the record of his broader legal battle, increasing public scrutiny of a multimillion-dollar Nigerian government communications campaign in Washington. But the court filing remains an argument by a litigant, not a judicial finding connecting the contract to unlawful online conduct.

Until the judge rules on Greenspan’s discovery request or new evidence emerges, the story therefore contains two very different levels of certainty. The financial relationship between Nigeria and DCI Group is documented in official U.S. foreign-agent records. The alleged connection between that relationship and attacks targeting Greenspan remains unproven. Treating those two propositions as equally established would misstate what the public record currently shows.