The Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala Alleged Illegal Diversion, What The Constitution Says.

  
I’ve read several opinions on this matter and most of them are emotional rather than logical. 
Let’s break this issue down and address them bit by bit. Please note that this is strictly my personal opinion:
Q: Was there a diversion?
My take: Yes
Q: Was the diversion illegal?
My take: No, the diversion was not illegal. Ngozi duly got approval for the transfer and the use of the funds. She stated in the memo that the fund was to be shared on a 50-50 basis (security-development). With this approval from the C-in-C, the ‘diversion’, if you can still call it one, was legal and duly authorized.
Q: But the fund was not appropriated? Isn’t this wrong?
My take: I believe the constitution empowers the President to spend without appropriation until at a later date according to Section 82 of the constitution. However, Ngozi’s letter clearly stated that ‘the funds form part of the projected Federal Government independent revenue to be appropriated’. Was it appropriated at a later date since the letter was dated January 2015? However, this is what the Nigerian constitution says on this issue and a I quote verbatim from Section 82: 82. “If the Appropriation Bill in respect of any financial year has not been passed into law by the beginning of the financial year, the President may authorise the withdrawal of moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the Government of the Federation for a period not exceeding months or until the coming into operation of the Appropriate Act, whichever is the earlier: Provided that the withdrawal in respect of any such period shall not exceed the amount authorised to be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation under the provisions of the Appropriation Act passed by the National Assembly for the corresponding period in the immediately preceding financial year, being an amount proportionate to the total amount so authorised for the immediately preceding financial year”.
Q: Was it right for part of the money to go to security when it should have been used for infrastructure?
My take: Without security, all infrastructure will go to ruins. Ngozi already explained that her office was accused of not making enough funds available to fight terrorism.
Q: Don’t you think Dasuki has a case to answer?
My take: I believe he does. That is why I have been saying he should have his day in court. Ngozi has provided evidence of disbursement of funds to Dasuki’s office as the NSA, so the onus for accountability now rests on him. However, I believe this is going to be a very tough case given the peculiar situation of security considerations anywhere in the world. For instance, there are several DSS moles who are students in the Universities in the North East. The woman who sells roasted plantain across the street can be a mole. These kind of ‘payments’ are not receipted. The NSA has spies everywhere even in the National Assembly and even in the presidency who are paid in cash. Then, there are instances when arms are paid for in cash at the black market. What about cash paid for security information?
Q: Are you saying Dasuki may be innocent?
  My take: No, that’s not I’m saying. I’m saying that the prosecution will have a Herculean task proving their case and I wish them well. I also want anyone found guilty to be sentenced appropriately. Nevertheless, a war situation is always a very fertile environment for corruption. Fraud is common when you give away billions. And one will be a fool to defend any politician on a matter of integrity.
Q: Some have been calling for the CBN Governor’s head too? Don’t you think he has a case to answer?
My take: Wetin concern agbero for overload? What has he done wrong? Do you think he should have refused a lawful instruction for release of funds? People should think with their heads and not any other aperture in their bodies. 
Final Word: There was a committee set up on the Abacha recovered loot to determine how it should be spent. It was sequel to the decision of this committee that the NSA brought a request to NOI. It was on this basis that NOI requested for approval from the C-in-C. I think Ngozi should be commended for leaving a paper trail and on the face of it, this is what is called transparency and accountability. In the corporate sector, you would have said she ‘covered her back’. She has been able to defend her actions and I believe others should do likewise. I wish all public officers can defend their actions while in office like she has done. And how I wish the same people shouting for Ngozi’s head made a quarter of that noise during the Rotimi Amaechi and Fashola saga.

My opinion. You’re entitled to yours. The level of hypocrisy, blackmail, manipulation, propaganda, misinformation and disinformation  is bloody well too high. Where we are heading to is towards a complete dymistification of the office of the national security adviser. Is this wise.