The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM) has challenged individuals claiming leadership of a purported “NIDO Worldwide” structure to produce evidence of its legal registration, governing constitution and election, escalating its dispute with some leaders of the Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO).
NiDCOM, in a statement signed by its Director of Media, Public Relations and Protocols, Abdur-Rahman Balogun, said it had requested three documents from those presenting themselves as the leadership of NIDO Worldwide but had yet to receive them.
The commission demanded evidence of registration of NIDO Worldwide with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) or an equivalent authority in the relevant jurisdiction, the constitution establishing the office of Chairman of NIDO Worldwide and a certified report of a global election through which the leadership was produced.
The development followed a rejoinder issued by Collins Nweke in response to an earlier NiDCOM statement of September 29, 2026, with the commission accusing him of allowing “sentiments” to obscure what it described as verifiable facts about NIDO’s organisational structure.
NiDCOM, however, rejected any suggestion that it was attempting to undermine or eliminate NIDO, saying the commission itself emerged from advocacy by diaspora leaders who had pushed for stronger institutional representation of Nigerians abroad.
The commission recalled that its enabling legislation was supported by diaspora advocates and said its Chairperson/CEO, Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, had worked with several NIDO leaders while serving in the House of Representatives between 2003 and 2015 to advance the legislation establishing NiDCOM.
“NiDCOM has not, and will never seek to sideline or erase NIDO,” the commission said, arguing that its position was aimed at reforming the organisation rather than abandoning it.
It said it agreed with Nweke’s stated position that institutions that were not functioning effectively should be reformed rather than abandoned, but insisted that reform required transparency, credible leadership structures and adherence to constitutions.
The commission said it had over the years monitored NIDO elections, intervened in disputes and provided platforms for diaspora engagement, while repeatedly appealing to the organisation’s various factions to resolve their differences.
It questioned what steps NIDO itself had taken to reform its internal structures, arguing that diaspora organisations that had remained effective in different countries had generally operated through identifiable constitutions, transparent leadership processes and legally recognised structures.
NiDCOM said the dispute was particularly relevant because the Nigerian government routinely engages thousands of diaspora professionals and organisations outside the NIDO framework.
It cited the recent Nigeria Diaspora Day and the Nigeria in Diaspora Economic Conference in Toronto as examples of engagements involving different diaspora organisations and professionals.
According to the commission, the Diaspora Day brought together hundreds of Nigerian medical professionals who contributed through surgeries, training and other interventions, while President Bola Tinubu received the group.
NiDCOM said such engagements demonstrated that Nigerians abroad could contribute to national development through multiple platforms without necessarily being members of NIDO.
The commission’s major point of contention, however, remained the claim to a unified worldwide NIDO structure.
It said that, based on its records, there were disputes affecting some continental and regional structures, while NIDO was either absent or not functioning as a unified organisation in some countries.
NiDCOM specifically referred to what it described as a contested NIDO continental leadership structure in Europe, factional structures in Africa and America and disorganisation in Asia.
It also said NIDO did not operate as a unified organisation in countries such as South Africa and Australia, while Canada had developed a different model involving numerous Nigerian diaspora associations working together.
The commission said it would therefore not recognise any individual or group that unilaterally presented itself as “NIDO Worldwide” without a transparent and verifiable electoral process involving the relevant country and continental chapters.
It also advised Federal Government ministries, departments and agencies, as well as Nigerian diplomatic missions abroad, to verify claims of NIDO Worldwide leadership with NiDCOM before engaging individuals presenting such credentials.
NiDCOM nevertheless said it recognised duly registered and active NIDO country chapters that could be verified by Nigerian diplomatic missions in their host countries.
It urged continental chapters to resolve their differences and proposed a bottom-up reorganisation of NIDO, beginning with properly constituted country chapters, followed by continental structures and eventually a genuinely elected global body.
The commission proposed that such a global election should be conducted under the supervision of an independent electoral committee rather than through self-declaration.
It pointed to Canada as an example of what it described as a more inclusive model, saying the recent Nigeria in Diaspora Economic Conference in Toronto benefited from NiDCOM’s engagement with various registered diaspora organisations and leaders.
The commission said its mandate was broader than NIDO and extended to all Nigerians living abroad, whether affiliated with NIDO, NAPAC, ANPA, MANSAG, NNC, other associations or no association at all.
“Our allegiance is to the 20 million Nigerians abroad, not to acronyms or titles,” NiDCOM said.
The commission said it did not intend to continue what it described as endless media exchanges over the dispute, instead urging NIDO leaders and elders to return to discussions aimed at resolving the organisation’s longstanding internal divisions.
It also cautioned against dragging NIDO into partisan politics ahead of Nigeria’s general elections, stressing that the organisation was a non-political association.
NiDCOM further urged NIDO elders to concentrate on addressing what it described as more than two decades of factionalisation and internal disputes rather than prolonging public exchanges over leadership recognition.
The latest statement underscores a broader challenge facing Nigeria’s diaspora engagement framework: how to maintain a credible national channel for engaging millions of Nigerians abroad while also accommodating the numerous professional, cultural, regional and community organisations through which the diaspora operates.
At the centre of the current dispute is therefore not simply the name NIDO, but the question of who has a verifiable mandate to speak for a global network of Nigerians abroad and what institutional process should confer that mandate.
NiDCOM said it remained willing to work with genuine diaspora initiatives and registered organisations, but insisted that claims to represent Nigerians worldwide must be backed by transparent structures, verifiable records and credible leadership processes.
