Lagos / Washington 14 September 2026
A 23-year-old letter from a United States legal attaché in Lagos has been revived as political ammunition in Nigeria. Reno Omokri, Nigeria’s ambassador-designate to Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua, has circulated the document as proof that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was “cleared” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of any criminality. A Washington lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, has invited journalists to test that claim with the US Embassy and the FBI, and has questioned both the letter’s authenticity and the meaning Omokri assigns to it.
The documentary record supports a narrower, and more awkward, conclusion than either camp’s slogans. There is no reliable proof that the 2003 letter is a recent forgery. There is, however, a substantial US court record showing that Tinubu was a subject of a federal criminal investigation in the early 1990s connected to a Chicago heroin-trafficking and money-laundering inquiry. He was never criminally charged or convicted. The letter does not erase that investigation. It records something else: a negative check of the FBI’s National Crime Information Center for arrests, wants and warrants.
That distinction is the legal heart of the dispute.
What the letter says and what it does not
The document is dated 4 February 2003. It is addressed to Tafa Balogun, then Inspector-General of the Nigeria Police Force, and signed by Michael H. Bonner, Legal Attaché at the American Consulate in Lagos. It replies to a police enquiry of 3 February 2003, reference SR. 3000/IGPSEC/ABJ/VOL. 24/287, concerning then Governor Tinubu.
Contemporary Nigerian reporting quoted the operative passage as follows:
“The results of the checks were negative for any criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for Bola Ahmed Tinubu (DOB 29 March 1952). For information of your department, NCIC is a very centralised information centre that maintains the records of every criminal arrest and conviction within the United States and its territories.”
That language is precise. It is a database result, not a judicial acquittal, not a finding that no investigation ever existed, and not a certificate that Tinubu had “no involvement in any act of criminality” anywhere within the reach of US law enforcement — the broader formulation Omokri has used on X.
The letter was produced in a partisan setting. In early 2003, as Tinubu sought a second term as Lagos governor, political opponents pressed the police to establish whether he had a US criminal record. The Alliance for Democracy screening committee asked the force to confirm any conviction in the United States. Balogun put the question to the US Consulate. The Consulate answered the next day with an NCIC check.
Vanguard reported the outcome on 10 February 2003 under the headline that the United States had “cleared Governor Tinubu of criminal deals”. The story quoted Bonner’s letter at length. That contemporaneous publication is the strongest single reason to treat the letter as a real 2003 communication rather than a document invented for the 2026 argument.
Tinubu later tendered the same letter in Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election petition proceedings as evidence that he had no US criminal conviction or arrest record.
Is there proof the letter is fake?
No. Suspicion is not proof.
Von Batten-Montague-York has pointed to spelling and grammatical defects in circulated scans — among them “czheck”, “maitatins”, “it’s territories”, subject-verb disagreement in “the result of the checks were negative”, and phrases such as “nor information of your department” and “contact me direct”. The firm said those errors made it “very difficult to accept this letter as authentic without independent verification”.
Those defects are a fair reason to demand a clean official copy. They are not, on the public evidence, proof of fabrication. Independent analysis of the same scans has noted that two-decade-old diplomatic correspondence commonly degrades through faxing, photocopying, stamping and rescanning, and that the substance of the letter matches what Nigerian newspapers printed in February 2003, years before the present online fight.
Three further points weigh against a “fake letter” theory.
First, the letter’s core claim is modest and internally consistent with how NCIC works. A forger inventing a political “clean bill of health” would more likely have written a sweeping exoneration. This document does not.
Second, Michael H. Bonner is a real name attached to a real office. FBI Legal Attachés, or “Legats”, are the Bureau’s overseas representatives. Lagos had a Legat office in that period. Omokri’s invitation to journalists to contact Bonner on LinkedIn, the US Embassy at [email protected], the Embassy switchboard, the State Department or FBI Headquarters is, in that sense, the correct verification route. No public reply from the Embassy or the FBI authenticating or repudiating the 2026 scan has yet been produced in open reporting.
Third, Nigerian courts and campaign organisations have relied on the letter for more than twenty years. A late-stage forgery would require an improbable conspiracy stretching back to the Obasanjo era.
What remains unverified is narrower: whether every word on the particular scan now circulating is a faithful reproduction of the original ribbon copy, and whether the US Mission will formally stand behind Omokri’s interpretation of it. Those are authentication questions, not proof of fakery.
The lobbying firm’s other question whether Bonner later worked as a consultant or adviser to the Nigerian government or the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency under President Tinubu has been posed, not proved. No independent public record confirming such a consultancy was identified in the reporting assembled for this article. The question is legitimate as a conflict-of-interest enquiry. It is not, on present evidence, a finding.
Was Tinubu criminally investigated?
Yes, as a subject of a US federal criminal investigation in the early 1990s. That is not the same as being charged, tried or convicted.
The public record begins with a civil forfeiture action, United States of America v. Funds in Account 263226700 Held by First Heritage Bank in the Name of Bola Tinubu and related accounts, case no. 93 C 4483, filed on 26 July 1993 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John A. Nordberg.
The United States sought forfeiture of funds in accounts in Tinubu’s name on the basis that they represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in money-laundering transactions contrary to 18 USC §§ 1956 and 1957 and 21 USC § 881(a)(6). An affidavit by IRS Special Agent Kevin Moss described an investigation of money-laundering of proceeds from a Chicago-area heroin distribution organisation, and recorded that the investigation drew on information from special agents of the IRS, the DEA and the FBI. The affidavit set out why investigators believed there was probable cause that funds in accounts controlled by Tinubu were involved.
On 15 September 1993 the parties reached a settlement. On 4 October 1993 the court ordered that $460,000 in a First Heritage Bank account in Tinubu’s name be forfeited to the United States. Other seized funds, running into more than a million dollars on some accounts of the case, were released. Tinubu did not admit criminal guilt in the compromise. He has consistently denied wrongdoing. He was not indicted. He was not barred from entering the United States.
Civil forfeiture is not a criminal conviction. Under US law it is an action against property, not a finding of personal guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Nigerian election courts in 2023 admitted the forfeiture papers but did not treat them as a disqualifying criminal conviction. The All Progressives Congress argued that the decree ran against the funds, not against Tinubu personally, and that the settlement contained no admission of drug or fraud offences.
That civil outcome does not decide whether there was a criminal investigation. On that second question, more recent US litigation is clearer.
Between 2022 and 2023, American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan filed Freedom of Information Act requests with several federal agencies seeking records of the early-1990s Chicago investigation, including what he described as the entire FBI file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records from 1992–93. The FBI and DEA initially gave “Glomar” answers: they would neither confirm nor deny that such records existed.
On 8 April 2025, District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia rejected those Glomar responses as to the FBI and DEA. She held that the Department of Justice had already officially acknowledged, through the 1993 forfeiture complaint and the Moss affidavit incorporated into it, that Tinubu was one subject of a criminal investigation involving the FBI and DEA. The CIA’s separate Glomar response was upheld. The court ordered the FBI and DEA to search for and process non-exempt records. The ruling did not find that Tinubu committed a drug offence. It found that the fact of investigation had already been officially acknowledged.
Subsequent filings have kept that finding in view. A sworn FBI declaration filed on 28 August 2026 in the same FOIA case stated that responsive records “were compiled in furtherance of the FBI’s investigation of multiple individuals for drug trafficking crimes”, and recorded that “the court has already determined that an official acknowledgement had been made of an investigation of Bola Tinubu.” Some records have been produced with redactions; others have been submitted to the judge under seal for in camera review. Tinubu has intervened to argue that further disclosure would invade his privacy. The Presidency has correctly pointed out that the Washington case is a civil records dispute, not a criminal prosecution.
The legal position, stripped of campaign language, is therefore this:
- Tinubu was a subject of a multi-agency US criminal investigation in the early 1990s connected to a Chicago heroin and money-laundering enquiry.
- Investigators believed there was probable cause to forfeit funds in accounts in his name as drug proceeds or money-laundering property.
- $460,000 was forfeited by civil decree after a settlement.
- He was not charged, not tried, and not convicted.
- As of February 2003, NCIC held no arrest record, want or warrant in his name under the date of birth given in the letter.
Those propositions can all be true at once.
Why an NCIC “negative” result does not close the file
Von Batten-Montague-York’s fourth question is the technically decisive one: would an NCIC records check disclose an investigation that never produced an NCIC arrest, wanted-person or warrant entry?
In ordinary US practice, no.
NCIC is a law-enforcement index of specified categories of records among them wanted persons, protection orders, stolen property, and criminal history information built largely from arrests and dispositions submitted by originating agencies. It is not a complete catalogue of every FBI, DEA or IRS investigative file. An investigation that ends without a custodial arrest, a warrant or a wanted notice may leave a substantial case file in an agency’s records systems and still return “negative” on an NCIC name check. Financial investigations, cooperating-witness files, grand-jury material and civil forfeiture work routinely sit outside what a foreign police force would see on an NCIC query.
Bonner’s letter itself points in that direction. It defines NCIC as a centre that “maintains the records of every criminal arrest and conviction” in the United States and its territories. That is a description of criminal-history holdings, not of the existence or non-existence of investigative interest.
Omokri is therefore right about one proposition and wrong about the inference he draws from it. He is right that a “criminal record” in the popular sense arrests, charges, convictions, outstanding warrants — is not established by the 2003 letter or by the later FOIA fight. He is wrong if he treats the same letter as proof that the FBI and DEA never investigated Tinubu, or that subsequent federal court records of that investigation are “unfounded innuendo”.
He has not always held the second line. In a September 2026 television exchange he accepted that “there was an investigation” but insisted Tinubu “was not the subject of that investigation”, describing him as an accountant who held client funds later treated as suspicious. Judge Howell’s 2025 opinion is difficult to reconcile with that narrower account. The court found an official acknowledgement that Tinubu was “one subject” of the criminal investigation, not merely a bystander whose clients were of interest.
Rhetoric, not a forged letter, is the real problem
The question put to this newspaper was blunt: if Tinubu was investigated, why is Omokri “deceiving Nigerians via political rhetorics”?
A newsroom should be slower than a campaign to use the word “deceiving”. Omokri has pointed the public to a real 2003 document, invited verification, and drawn a legally available distinction between an FBI file and an FBI criminal record. Many people who apply for US visas, work permits or background checks generate some form of FBI record without ever being accused of a crime. That point is not invented.
The distortion lies in collapsing categories that US law keeps apart.
Omokri’s original formulation that Bonner’s letter stated Tinubu had “no FBI criminal records or previous arrests, outstanding warrants or any other type of involvement in any act of criminality in the United States, or anywhere within the purview of the United States’ law enforcement bodies” goes beyond the text. The letter does not say “any other type of involvement”. It does not mention the DEA, the IRS, civil forfeiture, or investigative files. It reports a negative NCIC result for arrests, wants and warrants.
To present that result as a comprehensive FBI “clearance” of the Chicago episode is political rhetoric. It asks a 2003 name-check to do work it cannot do, and it treats a civil-forfeiture settlement and a 2025 judicial finding of official acknowledgement as if they were gossip.
The opposing camp has its own overreach. Calling the letter a fake because a scan is poorly typed, or treating a civil forfeiture and a FOIA disclosure fight as a criminal conviction, is also rhetoric. No US court has found Tinubu guilty of drug trafficking. No indictment was returned. The Presidency is entitled to say so.
What remains, after the slogans are stripped away, is a fact pattern that is uncomfortable for a sitting president and still short of a criminal verdict: a federal investigation, a probable-cause affidavit tying accounts in his name to alleged heroin proceeds, a $460,000 forfeiture, no charge, no conviction, and a 2003 NCIC check that was clean because clean NCIC checks do not record every investigation.
What verification would actually settle
Omokri’s challenge to the press — write to the Embassy, telephone FBI Headquarters, put the letter to the State Department — is useful only if the questions are the right ones. Asking whether Tinubu has an NCIC arrest record is likely to reproduce the 2003 answer. The questions that test the public claims are more specific:
- Does the Mission confirm that Michael H. Bonner signed a letter of 4 February 2003 to IGP Balogun reporting a negative NCIC check?
- Does the Mission adopt Omokri’s reading of that letter as a finding that Tinubu was never the subject of an FBI or DEA investigation?
- Would an NCIC check in 2003 have disclosed the 1992–93 investigative file or the 1993 civil forfeiture if no arrest or warrant entry existed?
- How is the letter to be reconciled with Judge Howell’s finding of an official acknowledgement that Tinubu was a subject of a criminal investigation involving the FBI and DEA?
Until those questions are answered on the record, the public is left with two documents that do not cancel each other: a 2003 attaché letter that is, on present evidence, genuine in substance and limited in scope; and a body of US federal court papers showing an investigation and a forfeiture that the letter never mentioned.
That is not a conspiracy. It is the difference between a database search and a case file. In a legal argument, the difference matters. In a political argument, it is the first thing to disappear.
By A.Ikechukwu (Crime Correspondent)
- Tinubu in Paris, Shettima in Delhi: what Nigeria’s constitution actually requires when both leaders are abroad
- The 2003 FBI letter, the Chicago files, and what Reno Omokri’s “clean bill” claim actually proves
- After London acquittal, Diezani Alison-Madueke faces a second legal battlefield in Nigeria
- Tinubu arrives in Paris for the second leg of his foreign holiday.
- Prince Eka William, Cross River power commissioner, dies suddenly in Abuja hospital
