Former presidential aide and Nigeria’s ambassador-designate to Mexico, Reno Omokri, has defended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s opposition to the public release of records held by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Omokri said the existence of FBI records bearing Tinubu’s name should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of criminal wrongdoing, arguing that federal investigative databases contain a wide range of records that may be unrelated to criminal convictions.
His comments followed a recent filing by Tinubu’s legal team before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where the President opposed a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for the release of records relating to historical investigations involving him.
In a statement reported on Monday, Omokri rejected claims that the FBI had released a criminal record against Tinubu.
He argued that while the FBI may possess records containing the President’s name, those records are not necessarily criminal records.
According to Omokri, FBI databases can contain information generated through background checks and other routine processes involving citizens, residents and foreign nationals. He maintained that the appearance of an individual’s name in such databases does not, by itself, establish criminal conduct.
Omokri also referred to correspondence he said took place between the United States Embassy in Nigeria and Nigerian authorities in 2003, when Tinubu was governor of Lagos State. He said the correspondence involved a request by then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun for information concerning any FBI criminal records involving Tinubu.
Omokri claimed the response from the US Embassy cleared Tinubu of criminal records and urged those challenging the authenticity of the correspondence to independently verify it.
Tinubu’s lawyers filed a 16-page submission on August 28 opposing Greenspan’s application for the disclosure of the records.
The legal team argued that Tinubu retains privacy interests in investigative files even where some information connected to an earlier civil forfeiture proceeding has already entered the public domain.
They also argued that the US Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act provide grounds for withholding or redacting material containing protected personal information. The lawyers asked the court to deny Greenspan’s request for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA’s existing redactions or withholdings to remain in place.
Greenspan’s lawsuit, filed in 2023, seeks records from several US agencies concerning investigations involving Tinubu. The requests include the FBI’s file on the Nigerian president and FBI Form 302 interview records relating to the 1992–1993 period, as well as documents connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding involving about $460,000.
The dispute has intensified after the FBI sought permission to provide some material to the judge privately, rather than filing it publicly, in support of its arguments for withholding certain records.
Judge Beryl Howell subsequently allowed the FBI to submit material for in-camera review, meaning the judge can examine the information privately before deciding whether the agency’s redactions and withholdings are legally justified.
The FOIA proceedings concern access to government records and should not be confused with a criminal prosecution.
Neither the court proceedings nor the existence of investigative records establish that Tinubu was convicted of a crime. The immediate legal question is whether the requested documents, or portions of them, are protected from disclosure under applicable US law.
Omokri’s intervention comes as the dispute attracts increasing political attention in Nigeria, particularly because the country is approaching the 2027 presidential election.
Greenspan has argued that the records are matters of public interest because Tinubu is Nigeria’s sitting president. Tinubu’s legal representatives, however, maintain that the plaintiff’s interest does not override privacy protections guaranteed under US law.
For now, the court has yet to make a final determination on the release of the disputed records.
The continuing proceedings are therefore likely to remain a subject of political and public debate in Nigeria, with supporters and critics of the President interpreting the case differently. However, any conclusions about the contents of records that have not been publicly released would be premature.
