The Abuja School of Social and Political Thought (TAS) has formally filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request with the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), demanding full disclosure over a controversial $9 million lobbying contract reportedly approved by the Federal Government of Nigeria for engagement with United States policymakers.
The move follows widespread public reports that the Nigerian government, through a US lobbying firm, DCI Group, and a Nigerian law firm, Aster Legal, entered into a high-value agreement aimed at influencing Washington’s position on Nigeria—particularly on issues relating to religious freedom and counterterrorism.
In a statement signed by Dr Sam Amadi, Director of TAS, the organisation said its decision to invoke the FOI Act was driven by the gravity of the issues involved, noting that the matter touches directly on public finance, national security, foreign policy, and democratic accountability.
“These are not trivial concerns,” Amadi said. “They go to the heart of how public funds are spent, how sensitive national decisions are taken, and whether due process and transparency were followed.”
According to documents reportedly filed with the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Government may have approved a $9 million lobbying arrangement, with an initial payment of $4.5 million already released. The contract, signed on December 17, 2025, is said to run for an initial six-month period ending June 30, 2026, with an automatic renewal clause unless terminated.
Under the agreement, the Nigerian government is reportedly paying $750,000 per month to DCI Group to assist in “communicating” Nigeria’s efforts to protect Christian communities and to maintain US support for its counterterrorism operations, amid sustained scrutiny from sections of the US government.
Nigeria was redesignated in October 2025 as a Country of Particular Concern under the US International Religious Freedom Act, a label the Nigerian government has rejected, insisting that insecurity affects Nigerians of all faiths.
However, TAS said that despite the scale, cost and sensitivity of the reported contract, key details remain shrouded in silence, raising legitimate public concern.
“There is limited public information about who authorized the contract, how the $9 million fee was determined, which government offices were involved, and how the funds were transferred,” the statement noted.
The FOI request seeks answers to several core questions, including whether the Office of the National Security Adviser authorised or directed the engagement, why a private law firm was used to act on behalf of the Nigerian government, what procurement or selection process was followed, and whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs played any role in the decision.
TAS is also demanding clarity on who paid the reported $4.5 million already released, through which financial institutions, and under whose formal approval.
Dr Amadi stressed that the request does not amount to an accusation, but rather reflects the public’s right to know how decisions of such magnitude are taken—especially at a time of severe economic strain.
“At a moment when Nigerians are facing deep hardship and are being asked to make sacrifices, transparency in government spending is not optional; it is essential,” he said. “Openness builds trust. Silence erodes it.”
The controversy has ignited public debate, particularly as insecurity continues to worsen across large swathes of the country. While millions of dollars are reportedly being spent to shape Nigeria’s image abroad, communities at home continue to grapple with kidnappings, mass killings, banditry and terrorist attacks, raising troubling questions about priorities.
Critics argue that no amount of foreign lobbying can substitute for tangible security outcomes on the ground. They note that there has been no public briefing, cost-benefit analysis or official justification explaining why such funds could not be deployed directly toward strengthening security operations, supporting victims or improving intelligence and policing capacity.
Equally striking, observers say, is the absence of official communication from the Presidency, the ONSA or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarifying the objectives, scope and expected outcomes of the lobbying contract.
TAS said it expects a response from the Office of the National Security Adviser within the timeframe stipulated by law, adding that any reply received will be made public in the spirit of transparency and informed civic debate.
“The Freedom of Information Act exists to promote openness and accountability,” the statement said. “Our request is made lawfully and in good faith. Accountability strengthens institutions, transparency strengthens trust, and an informed citizenry strengthens democracy.”
As scrutiny intensifies, the $9 million lobbying deal is fast becoming a test case—not just for transparency under Nigeria’s FOI regime, but for whether government is prepared to answer hard questions about governance, priorities and responsibility in a time of national distress.
If you want, I can:
- 🔎 Turn this into an investigative series opener
Click here to download the lobbying agreement.
The-lobbying-agreement-
