₦200m Questions: NiDCOM’s Defence Raises More Questions As Dabiri-Erewa Faces Fresh Accountability Scrutiny

The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM) and its Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, are facing renewed scrutiny over questions surrounding the alleged expenditure of about ₦200 million on events in 2023, after the Commission responded to the allegations without publicly laying out the financial records needed to settle the controversy.

Rather than publish the expenditure breakdown, contracts, payment vouchers, procurement records and supporting documents behind the disputed spending, NiDCOM has described the allegations as a “campaign of calumny” and accused those raising the questions of engaging in “social media blackmail.”

The response, however, has raised a fundamental question: if the records are intact, why not put the relevant figures and documents in the public domain and allow Nigerians to see precisely how the money was spent?

NiDCOM says it is prepared to account to the National Assembly and the Auditor-General for the Federation if formally invited.

But accountability in public office is not merely about promising to produce documents when summoned. It is also about providing clear answers when credible questions are raised over the management of public resources.

₦200m: Where Exactly Did The Money Go?

The controversy centres on allegations concerning spending on a number of diaspora-related programmes conducted in 2023.

NiDCOM has listed the Global African Diaspora Summit, National Diaspora Day, National Diaspora Merit Award, Nigeria Diaspora Investment Summit, Badagry Door of Return and the Global African Diaspora Symposium among the activities undertaken during the period.

But listing events is not the same as accounting for expenditure.

The critical questions remain:

How much was allocated to each event?

How much was actually spent?

Which companies or individuals received the contracts?

What procurement process was followed?

Were the services delivered as paid for?

How much came directly from government appropriations and how much came from sponsorships?

And, most importantly, can NiDCOM produce a complete audit trail for the alleged ₦200 million?

These are questions that cannot be wished away by describing the controversy as political.

Attack The Messenger, Answer The Question

In an apparent attempt to discredit the organisation that raised the allegations, NiDCOM drew attention to the date of registration of Global Integrity Watch (GIW), its stated business activities and the organisation’s alleged focus on government agencies.

But questions about the credentials or motives of an accuser do not, by themselves, answer questions about public expenditure.

Even if every allegation made by GIW ultimately proves unfounded, NiDCOM would still have an obligation to demonstrate that public funds under its control were properly authorised, spent and accounted for.

The real issue therefore should not be who asked the question, but whether the money was properly spent.

Dabiri-Erewa Cannot Hide Behind NiDCOM

As Chairman/CEO, Dabiri-Erewa occupies the highest executive position in the Commission.

Consequently, questions concerning the management of NiDCOM’s finances inevitably touch on the leadership and administrative oversight exercised under her watch.

The demand for transparency is therefore not necessarily an attack on Dabiri-Erewa personally. It is a legitimate component of public accountability.

If the Commission’s records conclusively establish that the money was properly spent, then the most effective response would be to open the books, publish the figures and end the controversy with evidence.

Calling the matter a witch-hunt without first providing a detailed financial explanation risks creating the impression that the Commission is more interested in attacking its critics than answering the substance of the allegations.

‘We Will Answer NASS’

NiDCOM’s Director of Media, Public Relations and Protocols, Abdur-Rahman Balogun, said the Commission would answer any questions formally presented by the National Assembly or the Auditor-General.

That assurance is welcome.

But it does not eliminate the public’s right to ask questions about public money.

If the Commission genuinely believes the allegations are baseless, it has an opportunity to demonstrate this conclusively through documentation rather than rhetoric.

The National Assembly and the Auditor-General should therefore, where appropriate, examine the records independently—not merely rely on NiDCOM’s assurances or the allegations of its critics.

The Bigger Issue

At the heart of the controversy is not Global Integrity Watch, its registration date, its business interests or its alleged political motives.

It is public money.

And where hundreds of millions of naira are alleged to have been spent by a government agency, Nigerians deserve more than a declaration that the records exist.

They deserve to know how much was spent, who received the money, what was delivered and whether every naira was properly accounted for.

Until those questions are answered with verifiable documentation, the ₦200 million controversy will remain hanging over NiDCOM and its leadership.

For Dabiri-Erewa and NiDCOM, the cleanest way out of the controversy is therefore not another press statement.

Open the books.

Let the figures speak.

Let the auditors verify them.

And let Nigerians decide.