Attacking the person where the person has "prior history" is reasonable. Nicholas Wade (assuming it's the same one) has prior history of making somewhat unsafe claims. The reason I bring this up, is because Wade is making claims that are themselves open to scrutiny. You should not just assume that they are correct.
Wade calls this a conflict of interest. Is it, though?
In order to defend this, Wade sets up a conditional to entice the reader. But with some consideration, it's not a compelling claim.
Daszak has funded some research at the Wuhan Institute. But he knows what it is, and indeed it will be clear from the grant documentation which, being via a public body, will be open to scrutiny. So, he's been getting his colleagues to collect bat coronaviruses. So far, so totally boring. If one of them accidentally escaped the lab, how on earth is he culpable for the fat-fingered incompetence of some tech in an institute he doesn't even work at? He knows what his grant is funding: if he knows it was not funding dodgy manipulations to bat coronaviruses, he is likewise not liable if a manipulated bat coronavirus escapes the lab, because it wasn't done on his grant. And if it was, that's fraud on the part of his Chinese colleagues. And if you want to question whether money should be given to Chinese research institutes, that's ultimately the responsibility of the NIH who oversee grant allocations, and the government who oversee NIH policies.
So, in short, Daszak has no credible legal liability at all, unless he's done something improper / illegal yet to be exposed. And I strongly suggest the Lancet has this position too.
So, in even shorter, this is a smear dressed up as an argument.