By Daniel Oluwatobiloba Popoola
Former presidential aide, Reno Omokri, has defended President Bola Tinubu’s opposition to the release of his unredacted records held by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), saying the existence of FBI files on the President does not amount to a criminal record.
Omokri stated this on Monday, 31 August, 2026, in a post on X, amid an ongoing legal battle in the United States over a request by transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, to obtain Tinubu’s records.
He argued that the FBI keeps extensive records on individuals for purposes unrelated to criminal investigations, including background checks conducted for the US Department of State and Department of Homeland Security in connection with visa applications.
“President Bola Tinubu has no criminal record in the United States, Nigeria, or anywhere else, and the FBI has not provided any criminal record on the President to anyone because none exists. Yes, FBI records may contain his name, but they are NOT criminal records,” Omokri said.
According to him, an FBI database search involving a US citizen, resident or foreign national could generate hundreds of pages of records without indicating criminal wrongdoing.
He said such records could contain sensitive biometric, biographical and financial information, including fingerprints, DNA, bank statements and other private data.
“Thus, as a US citizen or resident, or even as a foreign national, if your name is run through the FBI databases, it is likely to bring up hundreds of pages of records. This does not mean that the records are criminal. In most cases, they will be benign,” he said.
Omokri questioned whether Nigerians would want their private records released to political opponents simply because the information was held by government agencies.
“Would you, as an individual, want your private records released to your political opponents, even if they were non-criminal?” he asked.
He also claimed that US authorities had previously cleared Tinubu of criminal wrongdoing, citing correspondence he said was exchanged between the US Embassy and Nigeria’s then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, in February 2003.
According to Omokri, Balogun had written to the embassy seeking information on whether the FBI had any criminal records concerning Tinubu, who was then Governor of Lagos State.
He said the embassy replied the following day with what he described as an “all clear” regarding criminal records involving the then Governor.
Omokri added that his position was consistent with findings he claimed to have made during a 2022 visit to Chicago, where he investigated Tinubu’s academic and other records while he was a member of the opposition.
“Nigerians may want to find attached the response from the Embassy of the United States absolving the then-Governor of Lagos of any wrongdoing or criminal conduct, charges, or activity whatsoever,” he said.
He urged those questioning the authenticity of the correspondence to seek clarification from the US Embassy in Abuja or Lagos.
“Those who may question the authenticity of this document may also wish to contact the US Embassy in Abuja or Lagos for clarification,” he added.
The controversy followed Tinubu’s legal challenge to a request seeking access to his unredacted FBI and DEA records.
Through his lawyers, Tinubu asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to reject Greenspan’s request, arguing that the US Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act protect the records from disclosure.
The lawyers also argued that no public interest recognised under US law justified releasing the records and contended that the request was politically motivated because of Tinubu’s position as Nigeria’s President.
The FBI has similarly relied on several FOIA exemptions to resist the release of portions of the records, citing provisions relating to personal privacy, confidential sources, investigative techniques and the safety of individuals.
The controversy over Tinubu’s records in the US dates back to the 1990s and became a major issue during the 2023 presidential election.
In 1993, a US District Court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account linked to Tinubu after US authorities alleged that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were connected to prohibited financial transactions.
The All Progressives Congress maintained during the presidential election litigation that the case was a civil forfeiture proceeding and did not amount to a criminal conviction.
In September 2023, the Presidential Election Petition Court held that the petitioners had failed to establish that Tinubu was arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the US.
Despite the ruling, opposition groups have continued to demand the release of Tinubu’s US records, arguing that Nigerians have a right to know about the President’s past.
The African Democratic Congress spokesperson, Bolaji Abdullahi, urged Tinubu to support the release if he had nothing to hide.
“Why is the President opposing the release of his past records? That is suspicious. The President should allow them (records) to be released to clear himself,” Abdullahi said.
Similarly, the Nigeria Democratic Congress National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, said Nigerians deserved to know the truth and urged Tinubu to allow the records to be released.
Omokri, however, maintained that an FBI file should not automatically be interpreted as a criminal record, noting that the agency keeps non-criminal records through its Central Records Systems and Next Generation Identification database.
The ongoing US case concerns access to government records under the FOIA and does not, by itself, amount to a criminal prosecution or establish that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.
