A new 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 American public affairs and lobbying firm DCI Group, as transparency activist Aaron Greenspan pursues limited discovery in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit involving President Bola Tinubu.
The allegation was contained in a request for judicial notice filed by Greenspan on October 8, 2026, in his ongoing lawsuit against United States government agencies over records relating to an alleged federal investigation in the early 1990s involving Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele.
The filing supports Greenspan’s broader effort to obtain permission to pursue limited discovery involving Tinubu, who intervened in the lawsuit in October 2023.
According to Greenspan’s submission, DCI Group AZ receives $750,000 monthly from what the filing describes as the intervenor’s government, referring to the Nigerian government in the context of the litigation.
The filing also alleges that an account managed by the DCI affiliate published a written attack against Greenspan on August 5, 2026.
However, the document does not establish that the Nigerian government directed or financed the alleged online attack, nor does it demonstrate that the alleged monthly payment to DCI Group AZ was connected to the incident.
Greenspan’s filing also refers to allegations by federal prosecutors concerning a Washington-based public affairs and lobbying firm accused of engaging Israeli contractors whose operators allegedly directed the hacking of electronic accounts belonging to targets of a project for the firm’s client.
The filing alleges that data obtained through the hacking was subsequently provided to the lobbying firm.
“Federal prosecutors have alleged that a Washington ‘public affairs’ and ‘lobbying’ firm engaged Israeli contractors whose operator(s) directed the hacking of electronic accounts belonging to targets of a project for the lobbying firm’s client, and that hacked data was then provided to the lobbying firm,” the document stated.
Greenspan further argued 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 involved in the allegations as DCI Group.
He then linked the alleged relationship between DCI Group AZ and the Nigerian government to his claims concerning attacks against his website, PlainSite.
“DCI Group AZ, LLC is paid $750,000 per month by Intervenor’s government, and on August 5, 2026 an account it manages published a post attacking Plaintiff in writing,” the filing stated.
The submission, however, does not independently establish the identity of those responsible for the alleged attacks or prove that Tinubu, the Nigerian government or DCI Group AZ ordered them.
Greenspan is seeking records relating to himself, the lawsuit and alleged attacks on his website. His proposed discovery is intended to obtain information he considers relevant to his claims in the case.
The October 8 filing specifically 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 application. However, the copy supplied bears neither a date nor a judicial signature and does not, by itself, establish that the judge approved the request.
The request for judicial notice is also separate from Greenspan’s underlying application for permission to conduct limited discovery.
Tinubu intervened in the lawsuit in October 2023, citing privacy interests relating to confidential tax records and federal law-enforcement documents.
In April 2025, United States 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 records responsive to Greenspan’s requests existed.
The judge, however, upheld the Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records.
The ruling concerned the agencies’ responses to Greenspan’s information requests. It did not establish criminal wrongdoing by Tinubu or order the wholesale release of all the records sought by the plaintiff.
The latest submission represents another development in Greenspan’s efforts to obtain information through the federal court proceedings.
In September 2026, SaharaReporters reported that Greenspan had asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., for permission to put four questions to Tinubu concerning a series of alleged denial-of-service attacks on PlainSite.
In a reply filed on September 28 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, LLC, was involved in the attacks.
“If that is so, the four requests for admission can be answered in minutes,” Greenspan wrote.
The filings, however, do not establish that Tinubu or DCI Group carried out the attacks, and the documents described in the case do not identify the individuals or organisations responsible for them.
Tinubu had opposed Greenspan’s request in a submission identified as ECF No. 109, arguing that there was no independent verification of the alleged attacks.
Greenspan rejected that position, citing a technical mitigation report generated on May 29, 2025, by PlainSite’s internet service provider through its own mitigation system.
According to Greenspan, the report 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 present contrary technical evidence.
The activist also alleged that the attacks resumed after he filed his motion on September 9, 2026.
In a supplemental declaration made under penalty of perjury, Greenspan said the number of individual addresses blocked by PlainSite’s firewall had declined to approximately 69,000 by September 7, after the acute attacks stopped in late August.
He said the number subsequently began rising sharply around September 18, reached approximately 500,000 on September 23 and stood at 390,957 on the morning of September 24.
Greenspan drew attention to the timing of the reported increase, noting that September 18 had been the original deadline for the government’s reply to his cross-motion for summary judgment.
The deadline was later extended to September 23, the same day Tinubu’s legal team and the Justice Department filed their respective submissions.
Although Greenspan presented the figures as part of his argument that the attacks were continuing around important court filings, the timing and traffic data do not, on their own, establish who was responsible.
His declaration also indicated that the September incidents were less disruptive than the attacks he reported in August.
Greenspan said the August attacks had driven PlainSite’s server load average above 300, significantly affecting the website’s operations.
By contrast, he stated that the September attacks “did not overwhelm the server,” with the load remaining below 25 because PlainSite’s adaptive firewall automatically identified and blocked attacking networks.
He further reported that the firewall dropped more than 200,000 packets per minute on September 23, while total web traffic exceeded 480,000 packets per minute.
According to his explanation, some of the largest traffic spikes recorded on September 23 and 24 initially appeared in the category classified by the firewall as ordinary visitor traffic because the system counted incoming traffic there before identifying and blocking its sources as hostile.
The technical figures form part of Greenspan’s argument that the alleged attacks were real and that further questioning and access to relevant information could help establish their origin.
The central questions before the court include whether Greenspan should be permitted to pursue the limited discovery he seeks and whether the information he wants is relevant to the claims and issues in the underlying lawsuit.
The allegations concerning the Nigerian government’s purported monthly payment to DCI Group AZ, the account’s alleged attack post and the reported cyber incidents remain claims presented in the litigation. The filing does not establish a connection between the payment and the attacks or demonstrate that Tinubu or the Nigerian government authorised them.