A fresh filing in a United States federal court has alleged that the Nigerian government pays approximately ₦997.5 million monthly to DCI Group AZ, LLC, an affiliate associated with American public affairs and lobbying firm DCI Group, raising questions about the nature of the reported financial arrangement and its purpose.

The allegation, contained in a request for judicial notice filed by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan on October 8, 2026, amounts to approximately ₦11.97 billion annually, based on an illustrative exchange rate of ₦1,330 to the US dollar.

The claim emerged in Greenspan's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against United States government agencies over records relating to an alleged federal investigation in the early 1990s involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele.

Greenspan submitted the latest filing in support of his efforts to obtain permission to pursue limited discovery involving Tinubu, who intervened in the case in October 2023, citing privacy interests in confidential tax records and federal law-enforcement documents.

According to Greenspan's filing, DCI Group AZ, LLC, receives US$750,000 monthly from the Nigerian government, which the plaintiff describes as the government of the intervenor in the litigation.

At an illustrative exchange rate of ₦1,330 per dollar, the alleged payment translates to approximately ₦997.5 million monthly and ₦11.97 billion annually.

However, the filing alone does not establish the precise contractual purpose of the reported payments, whether the arrangement remains in effect, or whether the expenditure was connected to the alleged cyberattacks against Greenspan's website.

Nearly ₦1 Billion Monthly: What Is the Payment For?

The alleged monthly payment is likely to raise questions about the nature of the Nigerian government's relationship with the American firm and the services it is contracted to provide.

If the reported arrangement is confirmed, important questions would include which government agency authorised the expenditure, the terms of the contract, the duration of the engagement, the services delivered and the public objectives the arrangement is intended to achieve.

The filing, however, does not by itself establish that the reported payment was unlawful, improperly authorised or connected to any alleged wrongdoing.

The Nigerian government and the parties concerned would need to provide documentary clarification before definitive conclusions could be drawn about the arrangement.

DCI-Linked Firm Mentioned in Website Attack Dispute

Greenspan's filing also alleges that an account managed by the DCI affiliate published a written post attacking him on August 5, 2026.

The allegation forms part of an ongoing dispute over denial-of-service attacks targeting PlainSite, Greenspan's website.

In his filing, Greenspan referred to allegations by federal prosecutors concerning a Washington public affairs and lobbying firm that allegedly engaged Israeli contractors whose operators directed the hacking of electronic accounts belonging to targets of a project undertaken for the firm's client.

Greenspan stated that the United States Department of Justice, a defendant's counsel in proceedings in the United Kingdom and two national news organisations had identified the firm as DCI Group.

He cited these matters in support of his request for the court to take judicial notice of public records attached to his filing.

Nevertheless, the allegations do not establish that Tinubu, his government or DCI Group AZ carried out or financed the attacks against PlainSite.

They also do not establish that the alleged ₦997.5 million monthly payment was connected to the website attacks or the publication of the August 5 post.

Activist Seeks Permission to Question Tinubu

The latest filing follows Greenspan's attempt to obtain permission to ask Tinubu four questions concerning the alleged attacks against PlainSite.

In a reply filed on September 28, 2026, in Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Case No. 1:23-cv-01816-BAH, Greenspan argued that Tinubu had not denied that he, his government or anyone acting on his behalf, including DCI Group AZ, was involved in the attacks.

Greenspan maintained that the proposed questions could be answered quickly if the relevant parties had no involvement.

However, that argument represents the plaintiff's position in the litigation. It is not a judicial finding that Tinubu or the lobbying firm participated in the alleged attacks.

Tinubu's legal team opposed the discovery request, arguing in a filing identified as ECF No. 109 that there was no independent verification of the alleged attacks.

Greenspan rejected that position, citing technical records generated by his website's internet service provider.

Technical Records Cited in the Dispute

According to Greenspan, a mitigation report generated on May 29, 2025, recorded traffic reaching 941.9 megabits per second and 1.8 million packets per second at PlainSite's protected internet address.

He said approximately half of the traffic was identified and dropped as hostile, while 110,700 source hosts were blocked.

Greenspan argued that Tinubu's opposition did not address the report, challenge its authenticity or provide contrary technical evidence.

He also alleged that the attacks resumed around the time of subsequent court filings in September 2026.

According to his supplemental declaration, the number of individual addresses blocked by PlainSite's firewall increased from approximately 69,000 to about 500,000 by September 23.

Greenspan said the September attacks were less disruptive than those recorded in August because the website's adaptive firewall automatically identified and blocked attacking networks.

These technical figures are presented in Greenspan's account of the incidents. They do not independently identify the individuals responsible or establish a connection to the Nigerian government.

What the U.S. Court Previously Ruled

The lawsuit centres on Greenspan's attempts to obtain records from American government agencies relating to an alleged federal investigation in the early 1990s involving Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele.

Tinubu intervened in the case in October 2023 to protect interests he said could be affected by the disclosure of confidential tax and law-enforcement records.

In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration could not maintain their blanket refusals to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed.

The judge upheld the Central Intelligence Agency's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records.

The ruling addressed the agencies' responses to Greenspan's information requests. It did not establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu or order the release of all the records sought.

Proposed Court Order Has No Judicial Signature

Greenspan's October 8 filing asks the court to take judicial notice of the existence and contents of public records attached as exhibits.

A separate one-page document submitted alongside the request is labelled a proposed order and contains language granting the request.

However, the copy described in the supplied material has neither a date nor a judicial signature. It therefore does not establish that the judge granted the request.

The application for judicial notice is also distinct from Greenspan's underlying request for permission to pursue limited discovery involving Tinubu.

The court's decision on the discovery request remains a separate issue.

₦11.97 Billion Annually: Questions Over Public Accountability

If the alleged payment is accurate, the reported arrangement would amount to approximately ₦11.97 billion annually at the illustrative exchange rate used in this report.

The figure raises questions about government spending, transparency and the public value of contracts with foreign public affairs and lobbying firms.

Among the questions requiring clarification are:

- Which Nigerian government agency allegedly authorised the reported payments?

- What services does DCI Group AZ, LLC, provide under the reported arrangement?

- What are the contractual terms and duration of the engagement?

- Are the payments being made from public funds, and what disclosures are available?

- Is there any documented connection between the reported payments and the website attacks alleged by Greenspan?

These questions should be answered through verifiable contracts, financial records, official statements and relevant court documents rather than speculation.

As the legal dispute continues, the central issue is not simply the size of the alleged payment, but what the money is intended to achieve and whether the arrangement can withstand public scrutiny.

HSN will continue to follow the proceedings and report further developments as additional court records and verifiable information become available.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The ₦997.5 million monthly and ₦11.97 billion annual figures are approximate conversions of the alleged US$750,000 monthly payment using an illustrative rate of ₦1,330 per dollar. Exchange rates fluctuate. The payment allegation and the alleged website attacks have not been established as judicial findings in the supplied material.