Legitimacy Before Reform: The Rule Of Law Must Prevail,By Cllr Taslim Gbaja-Biamila

The recent article by Collins Nweke, “Fixing NIDO Requires a Reform Compact Facilitated by an Impartial NiDCOM,” is a welcome contribution to the debate surrounding the current challenges facing NIDO. Its tone is measured, and its desire for unity is commendable.

However, it arrives at the wrong conclusion because it starts from the wrong premise. The crisis confronting NIDO is not primarily a failure of mediation, dialogue, or reform. It is a crisis of legitimacy. Until that issue is resolved, every other discussion is premature.

The article proposes a six-month reform compact involving competing factions, independent mediation, constitutional reviews, and fresh governance arrangements. Yet this approach overlooks a fundamental principle that applies in law, governance, and democratic institutions alike: before an organisation can be reformed, it must first be established who has the lawful authority to reform it.

Authority is not something that emerges from a negotiation process. It must exist before the negotiation begins. A person cannot claim to represent an organisation simply because they say so, nor can historical association confer present-day authority.

Those who claim to speak on behalf of NIDO Worldwide must first demonstrate, through verifiable evidence, that they possess a valid constitutional mandate, have emerged through recognised electoral processes, and are properly authorised to act on behalf of the membership they claim to represent.

It is therefore concerning that the article proposes examining issues such as constitutions, mandates, affiliations, and election records during the reform process itself. These are not matters to be settled after negotiations commence. They are threshold questions that must be answered beforehand.

In any credible governance framework, questions of standing and authority are determined first. Only then can substantive discussions take place.

The article leans heavily on the historical evolution of NIDO Worldwide and references coordinating arrangements dating back to 2005. While such history may provide useful context, it does not answer the crucial question confronting the diaspora today: who possesses lawful authority now?

Organisations derive legitimacy not from historical narratives but from compliance with their constitutions, transparent governance, valid elections, and accountable leadership. History may explain an organisation’s origins, but it cannot substitute for evidence of current legitimacy.

Equally important is the need for balance in assessing the role of NiDCOM. No public institution is beyond criticism, and scrutiny is both healthy and necessary. However, it is important to acknowledge the substantial contribution that NiDCOM has made to advancing Nigeria’s engagement with its global diaspora.

Through investment promotion, diaspora entrepreneurship initiatives, skills-transfer programmes, support for Nigerians abroad, and sustained advocacy for diaspora participation in national development, the Commission has elevated diaspora affairs to a level of national importance that did not previously exist.

As a statutory body established by law, NiDCOM also carries legal responsibilities that differ fundamentally from those of voluntary associations. It would be irresponsible, and potentially unlawful, for a public institution to recognise individuals or groups claiming representative status without first satisfying itself that their authority is genuine, constitutionally derived, and properly documented. Public bodies have a duty to exercise due diligence. Demanding evidence of legitimacy is not interference. It is the essence of good governance.

Indeed, the alternative would be far more troubling. If recognition can be secured through assertion rather than evidence, constitutional governance becomes meaningless.

Public institutions cannot be expected to endorse disputed leadership claims merely to avoid controversy. The burden rests on those seeking recognition to establish their authority, not on public institutions to assume it exists.

The article also argues that accountability and unity should proceed together. While that sentiment may sound attractive, experience suggests otherwise. Sustainable unity is built upon legitimacy, transparency, and trust. It cannot be achieved by setting aside unresolved questions concerning mandates, elections, constitutional compliance, or governance. Organisations become stronger by confronting such issues directly, not by postponing them in pursuit of reconciliation.

Perhaps the strongest argument against the proposed reform compact is contained within the article itself. It acknowledges that years of mediation, electoral observations, reconciliation efforts, and appeals for unity have failed to produce lasting stability. If repeated interventions have not resolved the crisis, it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying problem has not been properly identified. The issue is not a lack of dialogue. The issue is a lack of certainty about legitimacy.

One cannot mediate a constitutional fact. One cannot negotiate whether a valid mandate exists. Such questions are not political; they are evidential. They are answered through documents, constitutions, election records, and verifiable governance arrangements.

The Nigerian diaspora deserves institutions whose authority is demonstrable rather than assumed, leaders whose mandates are proven rather than asserted, and governance structures that inspire confidence because they are accountable, transparent, and constitutionally sound.

The path forward is therefore clear. First, establish lawful authority through documentary verification. Second, determine constitutional compliance and representative legitimacy. Third, address outstanding accountability concerns. Only then should discussions about reform commence. To reverse that order is to place process above legality and political expediency above constitutional principle.

The crisis within NIDO will not be resolved by negotiating legitimacy into existence. Legitimacy must first be established. Only then can reform be meaningful, unity be durable, and representation be credible.

Cllr Taslim Gbaja-Biamila, Chairman NIDO UK Chapter