Grand Chief Imam calls for professional communication structure for Rabitoh 1964

OYO, September 14, 2026 — The Grand Chief Imam of Oyo Land, Sheikh Al-Imam Bilal Husayn Akinola Akeugberu, has called on the leadership of Rabitoh 1964 to strengthen its public communication structure to ensure that its positions are clearly and accurately conveyed to the Muslim Ummah and the wider public.

Akeugberu said the organisation should consider appointing a seasoned media professional with experience across print, electronic and digital platforms to coordinate its public communication.

The recommendation was contained in a statement issued on Monday by the Director of Media and Publicity to the Grand Chief Imam, Mallam Ibrahim Agunbiade.

According to the statement, clearer communication would help reduce the burden on the leadership of Rabitoh 1964, particularly the Mudeer Markaz, while ensuring that official positions are properly articulated, contextualised and presented to the public.

The Grand Chief Imam said this would also minimise the risk of statements being misunderstood, distorted or interpreted outside their intended context.

He urged Rabitoh 1964 to preserve its character as a broad and unifying Islamic platform rather than allowing it to be identified with any particular ideological sect, jurisprudential school or group within the Muslim Ummah.

Akeugberu said the organisation’s positions should be guided by the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad, while recognising legitimate differences of opinion in matters of Islamic jurisprudence.

READ ALSO:

• “Not as Corrupt as the World Thinks”: Reno Omokri Defends Nigeria’s Image and Safety
• FBI investigated people linked to Tinubu, not President — Omokri
• 2027: Sowore Promises ₦500,000 Minimum Wage, Free Education, 24-Hour Electricity

He specifically cited issues surrounding the commencement and termination of Ramadan, sighting of the crescent moon and whether Sha‘ban should be completed with 30 days as matters requiring knowledge, wisdom, consultation and responsible communication.

According to him, disagreements over such issues should not be allowed to create the impression that Rabitoh 1964 belongs exclusively to a particular sect, creed or ideological tendency.

The Grand Chief Imam also stressed the need for openness and consultation in the affairs of the organisation, rejecting any perception of Rabitoh 1964 as a closed association.

“Islam is an open religion,” the statement said, emphasising the importance of transparency, consultation and collective responsibility in institutions established to serve the Muslim community.

Akeugberu said decisions on matters affecting the Ummah should follow adequate consultation and, once reached, should be presented clearly as the agreed position of the organisation.

He further said Rabitoh 1964 should maintain an effective presence across newspapers, radio, television, online platforms and social media, while responding promptly to misinformation or inaccurate attribution of positions to the organisation.

He said improved communication would strengthen the relationship between the organisation and the wider Muslim Ummah in Yorubaland, promote understanding of its objectives and contribute to the unity and dignity of the Muslim community.

The Grand Chief Imam therefore urged the leadership to constitute a competent and professionally led communication structure capable of translating the decisions and positions of the organisation into clear, responsible and authoritative public messages.

The objective, he said, should be for Rabitoh 1964 to speak with a clear and responsible voice without compromising the legitimate diversity of jurisprudential opinions within the Muslim Ummah.

The statement was issued to journalists by Agunbiade on behalf of the Grand Chief Imam of Oyo Land.

Grand Chief Imam calls for professional communication structure for Rabitoh 1964

FBI investigated people linked to Tinubu, not President — Omokri

Nigeria’s Ambassador-designate to Mexico, Reno Omokri, has acknowledged that the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted an investigation involving individuals connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, but insisted that the Nigerian leader was not the subject of the probe.

Omokri made the clarification during an interview on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics, amid renewed controversy over FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) records being sought in a United States court in connection with Tinubu’s past dealings and a 1990s investigation.

He said reports suggesting that the President himself was investigated by the FBI were misleading, arguing that the records being discussed relate to people whose financial activities came under scrutiny.

“There was an investigation. Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not the subject of that investigation,” Omokri said, adding that the President was working as an accountant at the time and had money belonging to clients who were subsequently investigated.

According to him, the funds became part of the investigation because of their connection to the individuals under scrutiny. He said that when the matter was brought to Tinubu’s attention, the then accountant agreed to the forfeiture of the funds.

Omokri stressed that the forfeiture related to the accounts and not to the President personally.

The controversy has intensified following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case filed in the United States by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who has sought access to records held by US agencies concerning Tinubu.

READ ALSO:

• 2027: Sowore Promises ₦500,000 Minimum Wage, Free Education, 24-Hour Electricity
• Desmond Elliot Apologises to Gbajabiamila, Seeks Return to APC
• ‘Jobs Must Not Be Based on Connections’ — Oyintiloye Tells FCC

The case, filed as Civil Action No. 23-1816 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, followed FOIA requests submitted in 2022 to several American government agencies.

The FBI and DEA remain involved in the litigation after other agencies were removed from the case following rulings that allowed them, in certain circumstances, to neither confirm nor deny the existence of requested records.

The Presidency has repeatedly maintained that the proceedings are a civil records-disclosure dispute, not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu. It has also stressed that no US court has found the President guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

According to the Presidency, the FBI and DEA have produced hundreds of pages of records in the litigation, with portions withheld or redacted under exemptions provided by US law. The exemptions include protections for grand-jury information, law-enforcement investigations, confidential sources, investigative techniques, attorney-client privilege and personal privacy.

Tinubu was also permitted to participate in the case as an intervenor to protect his privacy interests in the records being sought by Greenspan.

The latest controversy followed the submission of FBI records to US District Judge Beryl Howell on August 28 for review under seal. The materials were submitted ex parte and in camera, meaning they were provided to the judge for private judicial review rather than released publicly.

Omokri, however, argued that the existence of FBI records bearing Tinubu’s name should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of a criminal investigation against him.

He referred to a 2003 FBI records check, which he said showed that there was no criminal arrest record, outstanding warrant or similar criminal record against Tinubu at the time.

The ambassador-designate also rejected the characterisation of the documents as evidence that Tinubu had a criminal record in the United States.

He said FBI records can contain information about individuals for several reasons and that the mere existence of a file or reference to a person’s name does not, by itself, establish criminal culpability.

Omokri also questioned the wisdom of releasing all the records publicly, arguing that some of the material could contain sensitive personal information.

The Presidency had earlier explained that Tinubu himself invoked privacy protections under the FOIA process, while insisting that his participation in the case should not be interpreted as an indication that he was facing criminal charges in the United States.

The dispute has nevertheless continued to generate political controversy in Nigeria, particularly as parties and political groups position themselves ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Opposition figures and critics of the administration have repeatedly demanded greater transparency over the records, while supporters of Tinubu have argued that the US court proceedings should not be presented as evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

With the legal dispute still before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the contents of the records submitted under seal have not been fully made public. The court will ultimately determine what, if any, additional material can be disclosed under US law.

For now, Omokri’s position is that while an FBI investigation involving people connected to Tinubu took place, there is a crucial distinction between that investigation and an allegation that the President himself was the target of a criminal probe.

The ambassador-designate said that distinction was being lost in the political debate surrounding the records.

FBI investigated people linked to Tinubu, not President — Omokri

Igbo Ministers Link UK Separatist Crisis to Kanu’s Conviction, Demand His Release

A group of Concerned Igbo Ministers has linked renewed separatist agitation involving Nigerians in the United Kingdom to the conviction and continued detention of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and called on the Federal Government to release him.

The group argued that Kanu’s continued imprisonment has not resolved the grievances driving support for the Biafra separatist movement, insisting that a political and peaceful approach is needed to address the wider crisis.

The ministers said the Federal Government should consider dialogue, reconciliation and political engagement alongside security and judicial measures in dealing with separatist sentiments in the South-East and among some Nigerians abroad.

Their position comes amid renewed attention to activities by pro-Biafra groups in the United Kingdom, where supporters of Kanu have continued to campaign for his release and raise concerns over his conviction and treatment in detention.

The group reportedly maintained that the issues surrounding Kanu should not be viewed solely as a criminal matter, arguing that his case has become closely associated with broader grievances over governance, political representation and perceived marginalisation.

Kanu, a British-Nigerian separatist leader, has remained at the centre of Nigeria’s South-East separatist crisis for more than a decade.

He was arrested in Kenya in 2021 and subsequently returned to Nigeria, where he faced terrorism-related charges arising from his activities and broadcasts linked to the separatist campaign.

A Federal High Court in Abuja later convicted Kanu on terrorism-related charges and handed him multiple life sentences. He has challenged the conviction through the judicial process.

READ ALSO:

• Driver Flees With Employer’s Car Two Days After Employment
• Boris Johnson Caught in Russian Drone Strike Scare Near Poland Border
• South Africa: Two Women Arrested Over Alleged Rape, Kidnap of E-Hailing Driver

The conviction has continued to generate controversy, with Kanu’s supporters and some community leaders arguing that the case should be resolved through political intervention.

The Nigerian government, however, has maintained that Kanu must answer to the charges against him and that his case is subject to the country’s judicial process.

The Concerned Igbo Ministers said the continued incarceration of the IPOB leader could make it more difficult to achieve lasting peace in the region.

They urged the authorities to examine the root causes of the separatist agitation and pursue measures capable of restoring confidence among communities affected by the prolonged crisis.

The group’s intervention adds to previous calls by some Igbo religious, political and community leaders for Kanu’s release and a broader political solution to the separatist conflict.

The debate over Kanu’s fate has also extended beyond Nigeria because of his British citizenship and the involvement of his family and supporters in legal and political campaigns in the UK.

British authorities have previously faced questions over Kanu’s detention in Nigeria, particularly following his controversial transfer from Kenya.

Kanu’s family had also pursued legal action in the United Kingdom over the circumstances surrounding his return to Nigeria, although British courts have previously rejected aspects of the challenge.

The controversy has remained closely connected to the wider activities of IPOB, which campaigns for an independent Biafra.

READ ALSO:

• Four-Storey Building Collapses in Enugu, Workers Trapped Inside
• 27-Year Wait Ends as Construction Begins on New Dutse Emir’s Palace
• Mother ‘sold daughter’s abuse videos for $300’: Nigeria child pornography case shocks nation

The Nigerian government has proscribed IPOB and accused the group and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network, of involvement in violence and attacks in the South-East.

IPOB has repeatedly rejected some of the allegations attributed to it and maintained that its campaign is focused on achieving self-determination for the people of the former Eastern Region.

The wider separatist conflict has nevertheless had significant consequences for residents and businesses in the South-East, including disruptions caused by sit-at-home orders, insecurity and attacks on public infrastructure.

Security agencies have continued operations against armed groups in the region, while political and community leaders have repeatedly called for approaches that combine security measures with dialogue and economic development.

The ministers’ latest demand comes against this background, with the group arguing that Kanu’s case should be considered as part of the broader search for peace and stability.

Supporters of Kanu have long maintained that his release could help reduce tensions and create an opportunity for dialogue between the Federal Government and representatives of communities advocating greater autonomy or self-determination.

Critics of such calls, however, argue that Kanu’s conviction followed a judicial process and that any decision concerning his sentence must respect the independence of the courts.

The demand for his release therefore remains politically sensitive, particularly as the Federal Government continues to address security challenges across the South-East.

For now, Nnamdi Kanu remains in custody, while his legal challenge continues.

The latest intervention by the Concerned Igbo Ministers has further intensified the debate over whether the government should pursue a judicial, political or negotiated approach to the Kanu case and the wider Biafra separatist agitation.

The Federal Government has yet to announce any decision to accept the ministers’ demand for Kanu’s release.

Igbo Ministers Link UK Separatist Crisis to Kanu’s Conviction, Demand His Release