President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is unlikely to be detained by American authorities should he travel to New York for the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly, according to a US-based political consultancy and lobbying organisation.
Von Batten-Montague-York, which has repeatedly commented on longstanding allegations involving the Nigerian president and his history in the United States, said there was no indication that US authorities intended to arrest Tinubu during the international summit.
In a statement published on its verified X account, the organisation instead suggested that the Nigerian leader could encounter significant public criticism or embarrassment during his visit.
The comments come ahead of the 81st United Nations General Assembly, scheduled to bring together presidents, prime ministers and other senior officials from around the world in New York later this month.
The lobbying organisation also rejected speculation that Tinubu could hold a private discussion with US President Donald Trump while both leaders are in New York.
It alleged that efforts had been made to secure a meeting between the Nigerian president and Trump but claimed that the proposed engagement would not happen. The group further asserted that officials within the Trump administration were familiar with the allegations concerning Tinubu and would therefore oppose a private encounter between the two presidents.
Von Batten-Montague-York said there was no current arrangement for Tinubu to be arrested over allegations relating to narcotics trafficking during the UN gathering. However, it maintained that the Nigerian president could face an embarrassing situation because of renewed attention to the allegations.
The organisation has continued to publicise claims linked to an old US narcotics investigation involving people connected to Tinubu. It has alleged that American law-enforcement records contain information linking the president to heroin trafficking, although these claims remain allegations and have not resulted in a criminal conviction against Tinubu.
The controversy dates back several decades and includes a civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately $460,000. Although the money was connected to an investigation involving Tinubu, the proceedings did not produce a criminal conviction against him.
Fresh interest in the matter has emerged as US government documents connected to the investigation have become the subject of renewed Freedom of Information Act litigation.
The lobbying firm has sought access to records reportedly held by agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. It has argued that the public deserves greater transparency regarding the documents and the historical investigation.
Nigeria’s Presidency, however, has disputed the manner in which the matter has been portrayed. Government officials have repeatedly maintained that the ongoing American court proceedings concern requests for government records under US freedom-of-information legislation rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.
That distinction remains central to the controversy, as there is no established criminal charge against Tinubu arising from the allegations described by the lobbying organisation.
The group has nevertheless warned that the president could encounter an organised campaign of negative publicity if he attends the UN gathering. It previously indicated that it could seek to draw international attention to the allegations during his visit.
The organisation has also criticised the prospect of any meeting between Tinubu and Trump and said it had communicated its concerns to officials in Washington.
Von Batten-Montague-York has been associated with political advocacy on behalf of Atiku Abubakar and has discussed issues involving Nigeria, including governance, security and the country’s political future.
More recently, the organisation claimed that Tinubu could potentially face criminal proceedings after leaving office if an investigation connected to the allegations remains active. It acknowledged, however, that the records it had examined did not establish that US authorities had made a decision to prosecute him.
The organisation has pointed to responses from American agencies concerning requests for information about possible investigations, noting that the agencies declined to confirm or deny whether certain proceedings exist.
