Tinubu Absence From Nigeria Triggers Debate Over Power Transfer

President Bola Tinubu’s extended stay outside Nigeria has triggered renewed debate over the constitutional procedure for exercising presidential powers while the President is away, particularly as Vice President Kashim Shettima is also currently outside the country.

Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a working vacation in Europe. On September 21, the Presidency announced that he had extended his stay by a few days and was expected to return to Nigeria at the weekend.

The development has prompted questions from former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) about whether the procedure under Section 145 of Nigeria’s Constitution has been followed.

The Presidency, however, says Tinubu has remained in contact with officials in Nigeria and continued directing government affairs while abroad.

Tinubu extends working vacation

The Presidency said Tinubu travelled to London on August 30 before subsequently moving to Paris, France.

During his stay in France, the President held a private dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron and met businessman Vincent Bolloré, according to the State House.

On September 21, presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga announced that Tinubu had extended his working vacation by a few days.

The Presidency said the President had remained engaged with developments in Nigeria and continued issuing directives while abroad.

Among the actions attributed to Tinubu during the period was the decision to establish an independent panel to investigate the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners who died while in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps in Niger State.

The Presidency said Tinubu is expected back in Nigeria at the weekend.

Shettima is also outside Nigeria

The constitutional questions have become more prominent because Vice President Kashim Shettima is also outside Nigeria.

Shettima left Abuja on September 20 for New York to represent Nigeria at the 81st United Nations General Assembly.

The Presidency said the Vice President was delegated to represent Tinubu at the international gathering and is expected to deliver Nigeria’s national statement.

While both men are abroad, Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume has represented the President at some official engagements in Nigeria.

The Presidency has described these arrangements as part of the normal functioning of government during the President’s absence.

What Section 145 of the Constitution says

The debate centres on Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The provision states that when the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he is to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Under the same provision, the Vice President is to perform the functions of President as Acting President until the President transmits a declaration that he is available to resume those functions.

Section 145(2) also provides a mechanism for situations in which the President is unable or fails to transmit the declaration within 21 days.

In that circumstance, the National Assembly may, by a simple-majority resolution in each chamber, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President until the President formally indicates that he is available to resume his functions.

The constitutional provision is therefore central to the current discussion because Tinubu’s original three-week vacation has now elapsed while he remains outside Nigeria.

Atiku questions who is exercising presidential authority

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned whether the constitutional procedure for presidential absence has been followed.

Atiku, who is the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate, asked whether Tinubu transmitted the written declaration contemplated under Section 145 before leaving the country.

He also questioned whether the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives received such a communication.

Atiku argued that the issue was not simply whether the President could communicate with officials from abroad, but whether the constitutional process governing temporary transfer of presidential functions had been followed.

The ADC has similarly asked the National Assembly to clarify the constitutional status of the President’s absence and whether the requirements of Section 145 have been satisfied.

Presidency says Tinubu can govern from abroad

The Presidency has rejected the suggestion that Tinubu’s absence has created a constitutional vacuum.

Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communication, said the President could continue exercising his constitutional responsibilities while outside Nigeria.

The Presidency’s position is that Tinubu has continued to issue directives and administer government affairs despite being abroad.

The administration has also pointed to the President’s continued official activity during the trip, including government directives and diplomatic engagements.

On September 17, for example, the State House published a presidential statement on the government’s arbitration victory in a case involving the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.

The State House also published a message from Tinubu on September 22 congratulating musician King Sunny Ade on his 80th birthday.

These statements demonstrate that Tinubu has continued issuing public communications while abroad, although they do not by themselves establish whether a Section 145 declaration was transmitted to the National Assembly.

Senate President says there is no vacancy

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has also rejected concerns that Nigeria is without presidential authority.

According to reporting by PUNCH, Akpabio said Tinubu remained in charge and continued directing the affairs of government despite his physical absence from Nigeria.

He also dismissed concerns arising from the simultaneous absence of the President and Vice President, saying there was no vacancy in the Presidency.

The ADC has maintained a different position, asking for clarification about whether the constitutional requirements for temporary transfer of presidential functions have been met.

The disagreement therefore concerns the interpretation and application of the constitutional procedure rather than whether the President remains the elected holder of the office.

Has the Section 145 letter been made public?

One unresolved factual question is whether Tinubu transmitted the written declaration required under Section 145(1), and whether the relevant legislative leaders received it.

Reporting by Premium Times earlier in September said it was unable to independently establish whether the President had formally notified the National Assembly about his vacation.

More recent statements from Atiku and the ADC have again called for the letter, if it exists, to be made public.

The Presidency’s public explanations have focused instead on Tinubu’s continued engagement with government affairs and the arrangements for official representation while he is abroad.

Without an authenticated copy of any Section 145 communication or an official confirmation from the relevant legislative offices, the public record does not establish the contents or existence of such a letter.

The 21-day provision has become central

Tinubu’s August 30 departure made September 20 the approximate end of the three-week period initially announced by the Presidency.

The President’s decision to remain abroad beyond that period has therefore brought Section 145(2) into the current debate.

That subsection does not automatically state that the Vice President becomes Acting President simply because 21 days have passed. Rather, it provides that if the President is unable or fails to transmit the required declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly shall, through a resolution supported by a simple majority in each chamber, mandate the Vice President to perform the presidential functions as Acting President.

This distinction is important because the constitutional text provides a specific legislative procedure rather than an automatic change of title based solely on the passage of 21 days.

Previous Nigerian debates over presidential absence

Questions about presidential absence and the transfer of authority are not new in Nigeria.

Similar debates occurred during previous administrations when presidents travelled abroad for extended periods.

During former President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo served as Acting President on several occasions after the constitutional process for transferring presidential functions was activated. The issue also generated wider debate when Buhari travelled abroad without an immediate formal transfer of power.

Tinubu’s current situation differs in its specific circumstances, including the Presidency’s description of the trip as a working vacation and the Vice President’s separate diplomatic engagement at the United Nations.

Nevertheless, Section 145 remains the relevant constitutional provision governing temporary presidential absence.

What happens next

Tinubu is expected to return to Nigeria at the weekend, according to the Presidency.

If he returns as announced, the immediate dispute over his continued physical absence would be shortened, but questions about whether the constitutional procedure was followed during the period could continue.

The National Assembly could also clarify whether it received any written declaration from the President and whether any resolution under Section 145(2) has been considered.

For now, the publicly documented positions remain different.

The Presidency says Tinubu has continued to govern from abroad and that official responsibilities have remained covered. Atiku and the ADC are asking whether the constitutional procedure for the temporary exercise of presidential functions has been followed, while Senate President Akpabio has said there is no vacancy in the Presidency.

The central unresolved issue is therefore whether the formal requirements of Section 145 were satisfied during the President’s extended absence, a question that can ultimately be clarified through official records from the Presidency and National Assembly.