Former presidential candidate and ambassador-designate Reno Omokri
Tinubu’s FBI records: Reno Omokri explains why President opposes release
Former presidential aide 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) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the existence of government files does not automatically mean that an individual has a criminal record.
Omokri made the submission on Monday, August 31, 2026, in a statement published on X while reacting to the renewed controversy surrounding Tinubu’s efforts to prevent the release of unredacted records concerning him.
The controversy follows an ongoing legal battle in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where Tinubu’s lawyers are opposing a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for access to records held by US law-enforcement agencies.
Omokri argued that the FBI maintains extensive records on individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with criminal convictions or wrongdoing.
He said the FBI may have information on US citizens, residents and foreign nationals whose names have been subjected to background checks for purposes including visa applications and other government processes.
“This is because the FBI conducts MANDATORY background screenings on behalf of the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security on US visa applicants,” Omokri said.
He argued that a name appearing in an FBI database could generate numerous pages of records without those documents necessarily containing evidence of criminal conduct.
“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 further argued that law-enforcement records can contain highly sensitive personal information, including biometric, biographical and financial details.
READ ALSO:
He questioned whether Nigerians would want such private information released publicly or handed to political opponents simply because the person involved is a public official.
“Would you, as an individual, want your private records released to your political opponents, even if they were non-criminal?” he asked.
His comments came amid renewed attention to Tinubu’s legal challenge against the release of unredacted FBI and DEA records.
The President’s lawyers have argued that US privacy laws and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) protect information contained in the requested documents.
They have also challenged the argument that Tinubu’s status as Nigeria’s President creates a sufficient public-interest basis for releasing otherwise protected personal information.
The legal dispute followed Greenspan’s FOIA efforts to obtain records relating to Tinubu from several US government agencies.
The requested material is connected to historical investigations involving Tinubu and dates largely to the period when he was involved in business and political activities in the United States.
The FBI and other US agencies have previously relied on various FOIA exemptions when dealing with requests for sensitive investigative records. Such exemptions can cover personal privacy, confidential sources, investigative methods and information whose disclosure could expose individuals to harm.
The current US case is therefore a dispute over access to government records, rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.
Omokri also sought to counter claims that Tinubu had previously been identified by US authorities as having a criminal record.
He referred to correspondence between the US Consulate in Lagos and then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun in February 2003.
According to Omokri, Balogun had written to the US authorities seeking information on whether the FBI had criminal records concerning Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.
Omokri said the US Consulate responded the following day after conducting a check of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.
Contemporary reporting on the correspondence indicates that the check returned no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants concerning Tinubu.
Omokri described the response as an “all clear” and cited it as evidence supporting his position that Tinubu had not been identified as having a criminal arrest or warrant in that particular US database check.
However, the 2003 correspondence should not be interpreted as a blanket declaration that no other investigative, administrative or government records concerning Tinubu existed.
READ ALSO:
The distinction is important because the current FOIA litigation concerns broader records held by US agencies.
Omokri said he also travelled to Chicago in 2022, while he was associated with the political opposition, to investigate questions surrounding Tinubu’s academic and other records.
He challenged anyone who doubts the authenticity of the 2003 US Embassy correspondence to seek clarification from the US Embassy.
The controversy over Tinubu’s US records also has a separate history dating back to the 1990s.
In 1993, a US federal court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 connected to a bank account associated with Tinubu.
US authorities alleged that the money represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or was connected to prohibited financial transactions.
The case was a civil forfeiture proceeding, rather than a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction.
The issue later became a major part of legal challenges surrounding Tinubu’s eligibility and qualifications during the 2023 Nigerian presidential election litigation.
The Presidential Election Petition Court acknowledged the forfeiture proceedings but held that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the United States.
The court therefore rejected arguments that the forfeiture amounted to a criminal conviction that could disqualify Tinubu from contesting the Nigerian presidency.
The distinction between civil forfeiture and criminal conviction has remained central to the political debate over Tinubu’s history in the United States.
Tinubu’s supporters have maintained that the forfeiture proceeding did not result in a criminal conviction, while his critics have continued to demand greater transparency concerning the circumstances surrounding the funds.
The latest FOIA case has now brought the issue back into public attention, with Greenspan seeking additional records from US government agencies and Tinubu’s lawyers asking the court to prevent or restrict their release.
Omokri maintains that the public should distinguish between an FBI file and a criminal record.
“President Bola Tinubu has no criminal record in the United States, Nigeria, or anywhere else,” he said.
READ ALSO:
He argued that the existence of records in an FBI database cannot, on its own, establish criminal wrongdoing.
Opposition figures, however, have taken a different position.
African Democratic Congress (ADC) spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi has argued that Tinubu should allow the records to be released if they contain nothing damaging, saying disclosure could help settle the controversy.
Other opposition voices have similarly demanded greater transparency, arguing that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in information concerning the background of a sitting President.
The disagreement therefore centres on the balance between privacy rights, government-record protections and public interest.
Tinubu’s lawyers are seeking to rely on protections available under US law, while Greenspan is pursuing access through the FOIA process.
The US court will ultimately determine what records, if any, can be released and which portions may legally remain withheld or redacted.
The current litigation does not itself establish that Tinubu committed a criminal offence, nor does it constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian President.
For now, the dispute remains focused on whether US government agencies should disclose additional records concerning Tinubu and whether privacy and other FOIA exemptions justify withholding or redacting the material.
Omokri’s intervention has added another layer to the debate, with the former presidential aide insisting that FBI records should not automatically be portrayed as evidence of criminal conduct.
The controversy is expected to remain politically significant in Nigeria as the US court considers the competing arguments over transparency, privacy and access to government records involving the Nigerian President.
Security Forces Rescue 10 NYSC Members from Kogi Forest Joint Police, Military, and DSS Operation…
Messi Retires from Argentina National Team for Second Time at 39 Football legend announces emotional…
IPOB Gives FG 14-Day Ultimatum to List Nnamdi Kanu's Appeal or Face Election Boycott Separatist…
Seyi Tinubu Can Change Things at NFF — Obafemi Martins Backs President's Son for Football…
"I Cursed the Pastor" — Yemi Solade Reveals Why He Quit Church 13 Years Ago…
EFCC Recovers N1.23tn, $684m as Convictions Hit 10,872 in Three Years — Olukoyede EFCC Chairman…