Former presidential aide and Nigeria’s ambassador-designate to Mexico, Reno Omokri, has defended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to oppose the public release of records held by United States law-enforcement agencies.
The controversy centres on a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case in the United States involving requests for records concerning historical investigations linked to Tinubu. American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan filed the requests, seeking documents from agencies including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Tinubu’s legal team recently asked a US federal court to reject Greenspan’s request for the release of the records or allow existing redactions and withholdings to remain in place.
According to reports on the court filing, Tinubu’s lawyers argued that the records contain information protected by US privacy laws and that the public interest claimed by Greenspan does not override those protections. They also argued that the request has political implications, particularly with Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election approaching.
Omokri, however, has focused on what he described as the difference between FBI records and criminal records.
He argued that the presence of a person's name in FBI databases does not automatically mean that the person has a criminal record or has committed an offence.
According to Omokri, US government agencies maintain large databases containing biographical, biometric, immigration and other information obtained through various processes, including background and visa checks.
He therefore urged Nigerians not to automatically interpret the existence of FBI documents concerning Tinubu as proof of criminal wrongdoing.
Omokri also referred to correspondence he said took place between Nigerian authorities and the US Embassy in 2003. He claimed that then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun sought information about whether the FBI had criminal records concerning Tinubu and that the US Embassy subsequently provided a response.
He urged those questioning the authenticity of the correspondence to independently verify it with the US Embassy.
The controversy dates back to a 1993 US civil forfeiture case involving about $460,000 connected to Tinubu. The ongoing FOIA litigation is seeking additional government records relating to historical investigations from the early 1990s. Tinubu has denied wrongdoing and was not criminally charged in connection with the civil forfeiture proceeding.
The FBI has separately argued that some information cannot simply be released publicly because disclosure could reveal law-enforcement techniques or potentially put individuals at risk. The agency has asked the US court for permission to provide some of its explanation privately through an in-camera, ex parte submission.
The case has continued despite an April 2025 ruling by US District Judge Beryl Howell that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on their previous “Glomar” responses to avoid confirming or denying whether responsive records existed. The agencies were instead required to process the requests while applying any legally permitted exemptions.
Omokri maintains that the latest reports should not be presented as evidence that the FBI has released a criminal record against Tinubu.
He said his own investigation in Chicago in 2022, when he was still politically opposed to Tinubu, also led him to conclude that claims about a criminal record were unfounded.
The dispute is now before the US court, which will determine what portions of the requested records can legally be released and what information may remain protected under American law.
For now, the existence of an ongoing FOIA case and requests for historical records should not be confused with a criminal conviction against Tinubu. The legal dispute concerns access to government records and the exemptions that may apply to them.
The issue is nevertheless likely to remain politically sensitive in Nigeria as the 2027 presidential election approaches, with supporters of the President defending his position and opposition figures demanding greater disclosure.
No comments:
Post a Comment