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, Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration.

Omokri, in a statement on Monday, argued that the existence of an FBI file containing Tinubu’s name does not automatically mean that the Nigerian President has a criminal record.

His comments came amid renewed controversy over Tinubu’s efforts to prevent the release of unredacted records concerning historical investigations involving him in the United States.

The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against several US government agencies.

Greenspan’s requests include the FBI’s file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records relating to the period between 1992 and 1993. The requests are connected to investigations surrounding allegations of drug trafficking and a 1993 civil forfeiture case in which about $460,000 linked to Tinubu was seized.

Tinubu has joined the case as an intervenor and, through his US lawyers, is asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent further disclosure of the records.

His legal team argued that the requested materials contain private information protected under US privacy laws and that the Freedom of Information Act does not permit the disclosure of an individual’s personal information simply because the person is a public figure.

The lawyers also argued that the public interest claimed by Greenspan does not outweigh Tinubu’s privacy interests and asked the court to allow existing redactions and withholdings in records already produced by the FBI and DEA to remain in place.

The case does not amount to a criminal proceeding against Tinubu, and the court has not found him guilty of any offence in connection with the records.

Defending the President, Omokri said Nigerians should distinguish between an FBI record and a criminal record.

According to him, the FBI maintains records on individuals for several reasons, including background checks, visa applications and other official processes that do not necessarily involve criminal activity.

Omokri said Tinubu has no criminal record in the United States, Nigeria or elsewhere, arguing that the mere presence of the President’s name in FBI records should not be interpreted as proof of criminal conduct.

He also referred to an alleged 2003 exchange between Nigeria’s then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, and the US Embassy.

Omokri claimed that Balogun had contacted the embassy to seek information on whether the FBI held criminal records concerning Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

According to him, the US Embassy responded the following day with what he described as an “all clear” regarding criminal records involving Tinubu.

Omokri challenged those who doubted the claim to independently verify the correspondence with the US Embassy.

The controversy dates back to Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by Greenspan seeking records from US law-enforcement agencies relating to Tinubu.

In earlier proceedings, the FBI and DEA had relied on a “Glomar” response, under which an agency can refuse to confirm or deny whether particular records exist when disclosure could trigger protected consequences.

US District Judge Beryl Howell later rejected the agencies’ broad reliance on that position and ordered them to process records that were not exempt from disclosure.

The dispute subsequently shifted to the specific records that could be withheld or redacted under exemptions provided by US law.

The FBI has also asked to present some of its arguments and sensitive material to the judge privately, citing concerns including law-enforcement interests and potential risks to individuals if certain information were released.

Recent reports indicate that the FBI has submitted records to Judge Howell for private review, meaning the materials are before the court but have not been made publicly available in their entirety.

Tinubu’s lawyers have maintained that releasing the records could violate his privacy rights, while transparency advocates continue to argue that information concerning a public official should be disclosed where permitted by law.

Tinubu has not been convicted of drug trafficking in the United States, and the current proceedings concern the disclosure of government-held records rather than a criminal trial against the Nigerian President.

The case has nevertheless continued to attract political attention in Nigeria, particularly as political parties and politicians prepare for the 2027 general elections.

The US court will ultimately determine which portions of the requested records are protected under applicable law and which, if any, can be released publicly.