Reno Omokri, Nigeria’s ambassador-designate to Mexico, has acknowledged that an FBI investigation involving people connected to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took place, but insisted that Tinubu himself was not the target of the investigation.

Omokri made the clarification while speaking on Channels Television’s  Politics Today amid renewed controversy over FBI records linked to investigations dating back to the 1990s.

He said the current debate had created the impression that Tinubu personally faced a criminal investigation in the United States. According to him, that interpretation was incorrect.

“There was an investigation. Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not the subject of that investigation,” Omokri said.

The ambassador-designate explained that Tinubu was working as an accountant at the time and had dealings with funds belonging to clients who were themselves under investigation by American authorities.

He said the issue surrounding the funds should therefore not be presented as a criminal case against the President.

The President was an accountant, and then the President had client funds. Those persons had been indicted by the FBI, and as a result of that, it said that certain funds… are suspicious funds,” he said.

“And then when it was brought to the attention of the President, the President agreed for a forfeiture. Now, it was to the accounts, not the President.”

Omokri’s comments comes amid the controversy over Tinubu’s historical records in the United States

The dispute is connected to Freedom of Information Act proceedings in the United States involving records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The case has catch attention following the release of 399 pages of records by the FBI and DEA.

Parts of the documents remain redacted, with the American agencies relying on several exemptions under US law.

The ongoing legal dispute is before Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Presidency has maintained that the case is a civil dispute over access to government records and not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

It said the court has not convicted Tinubu of any criminal offence and that the main issue before the court is whether the redactions and withholding of portions of the records are permitted under US law.

Omokri also referred to a 2003 document from the US Embassy in Nigeria which he said showed the outcome of a criminal-record check conducted through the FBI’s National Crime Information Center.

The document, dated February 4, 2003, was addressed to Tafa Balogun, who was then Inspector-General of Police.

According to Omokri, the FBI check returned no criminal arrest records, warrants or wanted notices for Tinubu.

The document also listed Tinubu’s date of birth as March 29, 1952.

Omokri argued that the document should be considered separately from the current FOIA proceedings.

He said the existence of records in the FBI system did not automatically mean that the person concerned had a criminal record.

He further maintained that FBI records can contain information obtained for different purposes, including background checks and other law-enforcement activities.

“There was an investigation. Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not the subject of that investigation,” he reiterated.

The 2003 document has itself become part of the wider controversy. While Omokri has presented it as evidence that Tinubu had no criminal arrest record or outstanding warrant at the time, questions have also been raised publicly about its authenticity and the scope of the check.

A US lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, questioned the authenticity of the document after it was circulated by Omokri.

The firm pointed to spelling and grammatical errors in the letter and said the document required further verification.

US authorities had not publicly confirmed the authenticity of the copy circulating online at the time of the reports.

The current FOIA case began after American transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan sought access to records held by US government agencies concerning investigations from the early 1990s.

The requests covered records from several agencies. Some agencies initially relied on what is known as the “Glomar” response, which allows an agency, in certain circumstances, to decline to confirm or deny whether records exist.

The court later ordered the FBI and DEA to process records covered by the requests.

The two agencies subsequently produced 399 pages, although several sections were withheld or redacted.

The reasons given for the redactions include grand jury secrecy, attorney-client privilege, law-enforcement considerations, personal privacy, protection of confidential sources and investigative techniques.

Tinubu has also asserted privacy rights under the relevant FOIA provisions.

Omokri, however, said he was not prepared to disclose the identities of the people who were investigated in the earlier FBI matter.

He said doing so could expose their families to unnecessary consequences.

The ambassador-designate also warned against the release of sensitive personal information contained in the records.

You don’t want those records in the hands of your enemies,” he said.

His position is that the records could contain sensitive information unrelated to criminal wrongdoing, including personal, financial and family details.

The argument has become particularly significant because the FOIA proceedings concern access to records rather than a criminal trial.

The Presidency has similarly urged Nigerians and the media to distinguish between the release of government records and a finding of criminal liability.

It said the FBI and DEA have released documents but that the court is still expected to determine whether the remaining redactions are lawful.

“The release or withholding of records under FOIA does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. The case concerns access to government records and the proper application of statutory exemptions,” the Presidency said.

The court has set September 11, 2026, as the deadline for Greenspan to file further opposition and responses to processes filed by the defendants and Tinubu as an intervenor.

The FBI, DEA and Tinubu are expected to respond by September 18.