The controversy surrounding the Auditor-General for the Federation’s observations on the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission is taking a curious turn with the recent statement from a purported “NIDO Worldwide”. It’s been established that no legitimate NIDO Worldwide exists, but let’s leave that for now.
At the risk of stating the obvious, an audit observation is not a conviction.
The auditor-general’s report is an official document, and its observations should be taken seriously. But an audit query aims to obtain answers, examine records and allow the competent authorities to determine whether the issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed. It is therefore premature for anyone outside that process to present the observations as established wrongdoing before NiDCOM’s response and supporting documentation have been properly considered.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions about public expenditure. In fact, scrutiny of public institutions is necessary. But questions remain questions until the facts are established.
“NIDO Worldwide”, or any other organisation for that matter, does not have the constitutional mandate to determine whether NiDCOM has breached any law, nor does it have the authority to pronounce a final verdict on the observations of the auditor-general.
And this is where the latest article by Chibuzo Ubochi, a factional chairman of NIDO Europe, becomes particularly interesting.
The September 18, 2026, statement was presented as a statement by “NIDO Worldwide” and purportedly approved by five continental bodies. Yet a subsequent statement issued by NIDO Africa expressly disputed that representation, stating that Dr Olufemi Fatoye, who signed the statement as Chairman of NIDO Africa, was not its chairman and that Professor Jude Osakwe occupied that position until May 2027.
NIDO Africa further stated that it did not authorise, approve or participate in the preparation of the September 18 statement and that its Executive Council and chapter presidents were not consulted.
That means the public is now faced with an internal dispute over who actually had the authority to speak for one of the continental bodies cited in the statement.
That is not something that can simply be brushed aside.
It also reinforces an important point that appears to have been conveniently overlooked in the public debate: NIDO is not synonymous with the Nigerian Diaspora. It is one organisation within the wider and diverse Nigerian diaspora community. Its members and leadership are entitled to express their views, but those views should not automatically be presented as the collective position of all Nigerians in the Diaspora.
The same caution should apply to the attempt to turn the audit observations into a broader political or institutional contest.
The September 18 statement itself speaks about “political interests” and “personal and political ambition”, even as the signatories become embroiled in an internal dispute over leadership, authority and pending court proceedings. One does not need to speculate about anyone’s motives to recognise the political undertones in such a development. They are evident in the language and circumstances surrounding the competing statements.
But none of that changes the substance of the auditor-general’s process.
NiDCOM, like several other hundreds of MDAs, has been issued an audit query. The fact that an audit query exists does not mean the expenditure was fraudulent. Conversely, the fact that an event took place does not, on its own, answer every procurement or financial-control question. The documents should speak.
That is why the rush to conduct a trial in the court of public opinion is unnecessary.
NiDCOM has stated that it has responded elaborately to the query and that the relevant documentation is available to the Auditor-General and the appropriate committees of the National Assembly. If that is the case, the logical thing to do is allow the process to take its course.
If the documents establish that the expenditure was properly authorised and accounted for, that should be acknowledged. If the competent authorities determine that further action or recovery is required, the law should take its course.
That is accountability.
Accountability, however, cannot mean that an organisation, which is itself embroiled in controversy, asks questions and then appoints itself judge, jury and executioner before the institution concerned has been given a fair opportunity to answer.
Chibuzor can express concerns. Civil society can demand transparency. Nigerians can scrutinise public institutions. All of that is legitimate.
But none of these groups should be confused with the Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committees of the National Assembly, or other institutions legally empowered to examine evidence and make determinations.
There is also an irony in demanding institutional accountability from NiDCOM while competing factions within NIDO publicly dispute who has the authority to represent them.
Perhaps the broader lesson from this episode is that accountability must be universal. It cannot be demanded only from government institutions while organisations within the diaspora ecosystem are allowed to make sweeping claims about representation without first establishing their own mandate.
NiDCOM should answer the audit observations. The Auditor-General should examine the response. The National Assembly should exercise its constitutional oversight responsibilities. And where the facts establish wrongdoing, the appropriate authorities should act.
Until then, an audit observation remains an observation requiring a response.
It should not become a political weapon, a factional bargaining chip or a substitute for due process, especially as the writer is known to be unambiguously linked to an opposition political party and his attempt to use Nido, a nonpolitical party, as a springboard has been embarrassingly exposed. He is fighting for survival now within Nido Europe.
The Nigerian public deserves accountability, but it also deserves accuracy.
Let NiDCOM answer. Let the authorities examine the records. Let the facts, not competing factions and public pronouncements, determine the outcome.
We in Diaspora Alliance Group are watching, waiting and following the developments.
Ikechukwu Nwafor writes via [email protected]