The Chairman of the forum of former members of Enugu State House of Assembly and former Southeast spokesman of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has warned that institutional damage will be done to Nigeria if the Department of State Services (DSS) clears Mr Reno Omokri for ambassadorial appointment.

Onoh also said that Omokri’s clearance will, to a large extent, validate Omoyele Sowore’s treason case and his similar allegation against President Bola Tinubu.

Onoh stated that such a mistake touches directly on national security, the integrity of ongoing treasonable felony prosecutions, the reputation of the Department of State Services, and Nigeria’s standing in the comity of nations.
Onoh made it clear that granting security clearance to Mr Omokri at this material time would constitute a grave and avoidable error with far-reaching consequences.

Reno Omokri was listed among ambassadorial nominees currently undergoing clearance by the DSS.
Onoh noted that the DSS is presently prosecuting Mr Omoyele Sowore on charges that include treasonable felony, rooted in substantial part on his repeated public description of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a “criminal,” and compared it with Reno Omokri’s case.

He stated that Omoyele’s case (Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/235/2019 and subsequent amendments) is active and sub judice, adding that Omokri has gone significantly further than Mr. Sowore.

“On multiple occasions (most notably in 2022–2024), Mr. Omokri publicly declared President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to be a “drug baron” and narcotics trafficker, claimed to be in possession of incontrovertible documentary evidence, and repeatedly dared the President to sue him in any jurisdiction of his choice, boasting that he would “expose everything” in open court.

“These statements were not fleeting; they were deliberate, sustained, and amplified across global platforms with millions of followers.

“The material difference in gravity of Sowore’s allegation is that, while he claimed that the President is “a criminal” (broad and unspecified), Mr Omokri’s allegation is that the President is a convicted (or forfeit-linked) narcotics kingpin who personally ran a heroin trafficking network and laundered proceeds through U.S. banks, with documented evidence that he (Omokri) possesses and is ready to tender in court.

“The specificity, the claimed possession of evidence, and the direct challenge to litigate make Mr Omokri’s statements objectively more explosive and, from a security perspective, infinitely more destabilising than Mr Sowore.
“The fatal contradiction, if clearance is granted by the DSS on Mr. Omokri for ambassadorial appointment while simultaneously prosecuting Mr Sowore for a lesser variant of the same genre of allegation, will result in inescapable conclusions to be drawn both domestically and internationally.”

Onoh stated that the DSS and the Nigerian state now regard calling the President a “drug baron” with documentary evidence as compatible with high diplomatic office.

He said that the Sowore prosecution now looks selective, vindictive, and politically motivated, because a far more egregious accuser is being rewarded with one of Nigeria’s highest diplomatic honours.

“The evidence Mr Omokri claims to hold is either known to the state and accepted (validating his narrative) or is being deliberately suppressed by elevating him to an ambassadorial position where diplomatic immunity could theoretically be invoked.”

Onoh envisaged that the defence counsel in the Sowore case will immediately file applications citing Mr Omokri’s clearance as fresh evidence of abuse of process and discrimination, adding that the trial judge will be placed in an impossible position.

“The case risks collapse or, at the very least, severe international embarrassment.”

He said that the legal and constitutional implications, going by Section 172 of the 1999 Constitution, which requires ambassadors to be persons of “proven integrity,” are that elevating an individual who has spent years accusing the Head of State of international narcotics trafficking (and claiming to hold the evidence) renders that provision farcical.

He stated that Nigeria’s obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) require that persons appointed as ambassadors be acceptable to both sending and potential receiving states; several key Western missions have already indicated (informally) discomfort with Mr Omokri’s past conduct.

“Clearance now would invite pre-emptive agreement refusals and diplomatic incidents. The damage to DSS institutional reputation is that the Service will be seen as having abdicated its core mandate of impartial threat assessment.

“Future defendants in similar cases will legitimately argue that the only difference between them and Mr Omokri is political alignment rather than the substance or gravity of their statements.

“Nigeria’s international image: Global media outlets that have covered Mr Omokri’s drug-trafficking allegations for years will immediately frame his appointment as Nigeria rewarding one of the President’s most vicious critics with high office—either as admission of guilt or as proof of transactional capture of state institutions.

The damage to Nigeria’s image will be incalculable and long-lasting.

“Finally, I implore that Mr Reno Omokri must not be cleared at this time.

To do otherwise is to hand him the ultimate platform to claim vindication, collapse an ongoing treasonable felony prosecution, ridicule the DSS, and make Nigeria the laughing stock of the diplomatic world. Don’t let Omokri make a mockery of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” Onoh warned.