Former presidential aide and ambassador-designate, Reno Omokri, has acknowledged that he was wrong to describe President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “drug lord,” saying his own investigation in the United States did not substantiate the claim.

Omokri made the admission while appearing on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics, where he discussed his previous comments about Tinubu’s academic background and alleged links to drug-related activities.

He explained that he travelled to Chicago in September 2022 to independently investigate claims that had circulated in the media concerning the president.

According to Omokri, he initially believed reports questioning Tinubu’s academic credentials and connecting him to allegations involving drug trafficking.

Rather than relying solely on the reports, however, he decided to travel to the United States to examine the claims himself.

Omokri said he arrived in Chicago on September 18, 2022, and visited Chicago State University the following day.

He stated that officials at the institution showed him documentary materials, photographs and newspaper clippings which, according to him, provided evidence that Tinubu had attended the university.

The former presidential aide said the information he obtained during the visit caused him to reconsider his earlier position.

‘Without Nigeria South Africa Wouldn’t Have Defeated Apartheid’ – Obasanjo

Omokri said he subsequently went public with his revised position despite acknowledging that doing so could have been politically damaging to him.

He explained that the evidence he encountered in Chicago led him to withdraw his earlier claims concerning Tinubu’s academic history.

“I honestly believed what the media reported,” Omokri said, explaining that he initially accepted information that had been widely circulated.

He added that his decision to personally investigate the matter was motivated by a desire to establish the facts rather than continue relying on reports from other sources.

According to Omokri, his checks also did not uncover criminal arrest records or an outstanding warrant against Tinubu in the United States.

He further distinguished between a wider investigation into heroin trafficking and the specific legal proceedings involving funds associated with Tinubu.

Omokri said the president was not the subject of the underlying criminal investigation and that the money in question was forfeited to the United States government through a civil forfeiture proceeding.

He stressed that the proceeding was a civil matter rather than a criminal conviction against Tinubu.

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

He maintained that his assessment changed after examining the available records and speaking with officials during his visit to Chicago.

The admission represents a significant shift from Omokri’s earlier public characterisation of Tinubu.

His latest comments also underscore the importance of distinguishing between allegations reported in the media, civil legal proceedings and criminal convictions when discussing claims involving public figures.

Omokri said his investigation convinced him that the evidence did not support his previous description of Tinubu as a “drug lord.”

He also suggested that his decision to correct his position was made despite the potential political implications, particularly because of his previous opposition to Tinubu.

The ambassador-designate’s comments are likely to renew public debate over the allegations that have surrounded Tinubu’s history in the United States and the extent to which information circulated publicly has been independently verified.

However, Omokri’s account focused on the findings of his own investigation and his subsequent decision to withdraw his earlier characterisation.

His remarks also serve as a reminder of the distinction between being mentioned in, connected to, or affected by a civil forfeiture proceeding and being criminally convicted of a drug offence.