President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s prolonged absence from Nigeria has become too consequential to be treated simply as another presidential holiday or another episode of political controversy.
The President left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a three-week working vacation in Europe. He spent the first part of the trip in London before moving to Paris, where he held engagements with French President Emmanuel Macron and businessman Vincent Bolloré. On Monday, the Presidency announced that he had extended the vacation by several days and would now return to Nigeria at the weekend.
There is nothing inherently objectionable about a president taking annual leave. Public office does not extinguish the need for rest, and a president can continue to receive briefings and issue directives while abroad. The Presidency says that has been the case with Mr Tinubu, pointing among other things to his directive for an independent investigation into the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners held in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps in Minna. The difficulty is that presidential leadership is about more than issuing instructions from another continent. It is also about visibility, accountability, constitutional procedure and the confidence that comes from knowing precisely who is exercising the powers of the Nigerian presidency at any given moment. That question has acquired greater urgency because Mr Tinubu is now missing the United Nations General Assembly for the third consecutive year. He attended the 78th UNGA in 2023 but did not attend the 79th in 2024 or the 80th in 2025. Vice-President Kashim Shettima represented him on those occasions and is again leading Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st session.
The Presidency has offered a straightforward explanation. Its Senior Special Assistant on Foreign Affairs and Protocol, Ademola Osodi, said the President’s attention is required at home, particularly on the economy and security, while stressing that Nigeria has other international platforms through which it pursues its diplomatic interests. He also rejected suggestions that Mr Tinubu’s absence was caused by any restriction on his ability to enter the United States, saying there was “absolutely no impediment” to such travel. That explanation deserves to be considered on its own terms. There is no established evidence in the public record that Mr Tinubu is legally barred from entering the United States. The Presidency has explicitly denied such a restriction.
Yet there remains a legitimate question about the value Nigeria loses when its President repeatedly delegates one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings.
The UN General Assembly is not merely a ceremony where a national statement is read from a podium. It is an unusually concentrated diplomatic opportunity. Heads of government gather in one place with presidents, prime ministers, international institutions, investors and development partners. The formal speech is only one part of the exercise. The meetings around it can matter just as much for trade, investment, security cooperation, development financing and foreign policy.
Nigeria will, of course, be represented. The Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim, has said the country will be adequately represented, while Vice-President Shettima is expected to deliver Nigeria’s national statement and participate in bilateral engagements. More than 60 per cent of those scheduled to speak at the gathering are reportedly being represented by vice-presidents or foreign ministers. Representation, therefore, is not the central problem. The concern is what repeated presidential absence communicates about the priority attached to direct diplomatic engagement at a time when Nigeria is seeking to reposition itself economically and politically. There is an even more immediate constitutional question.
Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution provides that whenever the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Until he transmits a declaration to the contrary, the Vice-President performs the functions of President as Acting President. If the President fails to transmit the declaration within 21 days, the Constitution provides for the National Assembly to mandate the Vice-President to perform those functions as Acting President. This is where the Presidency owes Nigerians greater clarity.
The President left on August 30. His original three-week period has now elapsed, with his return pushed to the weekend. Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has consequently questioned whether the constitutional procedure has been followed and asked the Presidency to make any relevant declaration public.
There are competing interpretations of the constitutional provision. Earlier in the vacation, constitutional lawyers consulted by Premium Times disagreed over whether Section 145 requires a formal declaration immediately upon proceeding on vacation or whether the 21-day provision becomes decisive only where the President has failed to transmit such a declaration. The Presidency also did not publicly establish at the time whether such a letter had been transmitted. That uncertainty should have been avoidable.
Government should not leave citizens, lawmakers and constitutional lawyers debating who formally exercises presidential authority because the relevant documentation has not been clearly communicated. The Presidency should state plainly whether a Section 145 declaration was transmitted, when it was transmitted and what constitutional status applies during the President’s extended absence. This is especially important because the country has hardly been standing still.
During the President’s absence, 37 suspected illegal miners died in NSCDC custody in Minna, triggering public anger, protests, a curfew and the suspension of senior officials. The President ordered an investigation and called for accountability. Such an episode illustrates precisely why questions about presidential presence and constitutional authority cannot be dismissed as political noise.
Nigeria is dealing with insecurity, economic pressures, energy challenges and institutional weaknesses that require continuous executive attention. The President does not have to be physically present at every crisis. Modern government is capable of functioning through delegated authority. The Vice-President, ministers, governors and other officials have defined responsibilities. But delegation works best when its boundaries are clear.
The Presidency should therefore resist the temptation to answer every question about Mr Tinubu’s absence as though it were an attack from the opposition. Some questions are political. Others are constitutional. Still others concern the effectiveness of Nigeria’s foreign policy. They deserve different answers.
The President’s meeting with Macron in Paris demonstrates that his time abroad has included substantive engagements. The Presidency says the dinner reaffirmed Nigeria-France relations and that other meetings have focused on economic and creative-sector interests. Those engagements may be useful to Nigeria. They should be judged by what they produce for the country. The same standard should apply to the vacation itself.
A president is entitled to rest. A nation is entitled to know who is governing it, under what authority and with what level of accountability. The answer should never depend on inference.
As President Tinubu prepares to return, the Presidency has an opportunity to settle the matter without rancour. It should provide a clear account of the constitutional arrangements governing the President’s extended absence, explain the rationale for the third consecutive UNGA delegation and demonstrate what concrete diplomatic and economic outcomes have emerged from the President’s overseas engagements. Nigeria does not need perpetual presidential visibility. It needs institutional clarity. And while a president may take a vacation, the Nigerian state cannot afford to appear as though it has gone on one too.