A filing before a United States federal court has alleged that the Nigerian government pays $750,000 monthly to DCI Group AZ, LLC, an affiliate associated with Washington-based public affairs and lobbying firm DCI Group.
The allegation was raised by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan in a legal dispute concerning his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against US government agencies. The case involves his efforts to obtain records relating to an alleged federal investigation in the early 1990s involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele.
Greenspan submitted a request for judicial notice on 8 October 2026, seeking the court’s recognition of public records attached to his filing. He is also pursuing permission to conduct limited discovery involving Tinubu, who joined the case in October 2023.
According to the submission, DCI Group AZ receives $750,000 per month from the Nigerian government. The filing further alleges that an account managed by the DCI affiliate published a post criticising Greenspan on 5 August 2026.
Greenspan is seeking information concerning himself, the ongoing litigation and alleged cyberattacks against his website, PlainSite. His court submissions refer to allegations involving a Washington-based lobbying firm and Israeli contractors accused of participating in the hacking of electronic accounts belonging to targets of a lobbying project.
The filing identifies DCI Group as the firm referred to in those allegations. However, these claims remain allegations presented in legal proceedings and should not be treated as established findings of fact.
COURT FILING DOES NOT ESTABLISH A LINK BETWEEN PAYMENT AND ALLEGED ATTACKS
Although Greenspan’s submission refers to the alleged monthly payment and the online post targeting him, the document does not establish that the Nigerian government ordered or financed the post. It also does not demonstrate that the reported payment was connected to the alleged cyberattacks.
A separate document submitted alongside the request is labelled a proposed court order. The copy examined by Sahara Reporters bears neither a date nor a judge’s signature. Its wording, therefore, does not establish that the court granted the request for judicial notice.
The request for judicial notice is also separate from Greenspan’s application for permission to pursue limited discovery.
BACKGROUND TO TINUBU’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE
Tinubu intervened in the lawsuit in October 2023, citing privacy interests relating to confidential tax records and federal law-enforcement documents.
In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration could not maintain blanket refusals to confirm or deny whether records responsive to Greenspan’s requests existed. However, the judge upheld the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records.
That ruling concerned the agencies’ handling of the information requests. It did not establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu or order the unconditional release of all the records sought.
GREENS PAN SEEKS ANSWERS OVER ALLEGED CYBERATTACKS
In September 2026, Greenspan asked the federal court for permission to put four questions to Tinubu concerning alleged denial-of-service attacks against PlainSite.
In subsequent submissions, Greenspan argued that Tinubu’s response had not independently verified or sufficiently addressed the alleged attacks. He also referred to a technical report generated by his website’s internet service provider on 29 May 2025.
According to Greenspan, the report recorded traffic reaching 941.9 megabits per second and 1.8 million packets per second at PlainSite’s protected address. He said approximately half of the traffic was identified and blocked as hostile, while 110,700 source hosts were blocked.
Greenspan further alleged that the attacks resumed around the time of later court filings. He reported a sharp increase in blocked source addresses in September, although he said the later attacks were less disruptive than those recorded in August.
These figures and descriptions are based on Greenspan’s submissions. They do not, on their own, identify who was responsible for the alleged attacks.
The latest filing forms part of his continuing effort to obtain information and pursue limited discovery in the case. The allegations concerning the lobbying firm, the reported government payments and the cyberattacks have not been established by the filing itself as judicial findings.
