President Bola Ahmed Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a three-week “working vacation” in Europe.
Nearly four weeks later, he is yet to return.
His arrival, originally expected after the three-week leave, was first pushed to the weekend. Fresh reports on Sunday said the President would now return to Lagos on Tuesday, September 29, barring another change.
There is nothing unusual about a Nigerian president travelling abroad. The unusual part lies in what has happened around this particular trip.
Tinubu has remained in Europe while Vice-President Kashim Shettima travelled to New York to represent him at the 81st United Nations General Assembly. As of Sunday, Shettima remained in New York for diplomatic engagements, while UNGA High-Level Week continued.
For a government that insists everything remains under control, the arrangement raises a deeper issue than presidential travel.
Can Tinubu really rule Nigeria from anywhere?
The Presidency says he can.
The President may be in Paris, but presidential power is in Abuja
Daniel Bwala, Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Policy Communication, made the government’s position unusually direct. He said the President’s constitutional power to govern Nigeria does not depend on geography. Tinubu, he argued, can issue orders, give directives, delegate responsibilities and administer government from anywhere in the world.
It is a compelling argument in an age when government no longer depends on physical proximity. A president can receive intelligence reports on a secure device, speak with ministers by phone, review documents electronically and issue instructions from thousands of kilometres away. The physical walls of Aso Rock cannot define the reach of executive power in 2026.
Tinubu has also shown evidence of official activity during the trip. The State House says he continued directing government affairs and ordered an independent investigation into the deaths of 37 illegal miners in Minna.
He also met French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris and participated in the signing of agreements involving Ogun State and DP World for a proposed deep-sea port and special economic zone.
So the argument is not that Nigeria’s government has stopped working. It plainly has not.
The harder issue sits somewhere else: what happens when practical presidential power meets a Constitution that provides a formal process for presidential absence?
What does the Constitution say?
Section 145 of the Constitution says a President proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge his functions shall transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House. Until the President transmits a contrary declaration, the Vice-President performs the functions of President as Acting President. The provision also addresses what happens if the President does not transmit the declaration within 21 days.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has built his criticism around this provision. He has asked whether Tinubu transmitted the required declaration and whether Nigerians have seen evidence of such a transfer. Other opposition voices have raised similar concerns.
The Presidency has rejected the criticism.
Both sides are therefore discussing different layers of the same problem. One side is talking about the ability to govern. The other is talking about the formal location of constitutional authority. Confusing those two issues makes the debate unnecessarily noisy.
When the President and Vice-President are both abroad
The situation became more striking when Shettima departed for New York on September 20.
Tinubu had mandated the Vice-President to lead Nigeria’s delegation to UNGA 81 and deliver the country’s national statement. Shettima has since represented Nigeria in several high-level engagements, including discussions on reform of the UN Security Council and Africa’s place in global decision-making.
Nigeria’s representation at the United Nations is therefore not in doubt. Shettima has carried out the assignment given to him. His address carried Tinubu’s position, including Nigeria’s call for permanent African representation on the Security Council.
Yet the symbolism is difficult to ignore.
For part of this period, Nigeria’s President has been in Europe while his Vice-President has been in the United States representing him. The Presidency says Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume has also represented the President at official events. Tinubu, meanwhile, has continued to issue directives from abroad.
There is no need to manufacture a crisis from this arrangement. Governments have layers of authority, and public administration does not collapse because two senior officials travel.
The point is more basic: when unusual circumstances arise, citizens should not need political arguments to understand who formally exercises executive authority.
A constitutional democracy works best when the chain of authority is clear before a crisis tests it.
The UNGA timing makes the debate harder to dismiss
Tinubu’s decision not to attend UNGA personally has also attracted criticism, particularly from opposition figures. Peter Obi questioned the President’s absence while Ghanaian President John Mahama addressed the Assembly in New York.
The government’s answer is straightforward: Nigeria is represented by the Vice-President.
There is merit in examining the distinction between representation and presence. Shettima has delivered Nigeria’s statement and held bilateral meetings. Nigeria has used the gathering to push for Security Council reform, stronger African representation, better access to development finance and greater economic cooperation.
A President’s physical presence at a gathering of world leaders also carries a different diplomatic weight from sending a representative. Heads of government use such gatherings to meet counterparts, build relationships and pursue national interests directly. A Vice-President can perform much of this work, but delegation can change the political weight of the engagement.
Tinubu’s choice therefore raises a legitimate policy issue. What diplomatic value does Nigeria gain when the President attends UNGA personally? What value does the country gain by allowing the Vice-President to represent him?
Those questions deserve evidence, not political slogans.
There is also an interesting irony in the geography of the moment. Tinubu has been in France, while French President Emmanuel Macron has been in New York for UNGA.
Meanwhile, Nigeria’s Vice-President has been in New York representing a President who chose not to attend. The picture is unusual enough to invite scrutiny without requiring anyone to exaggerate it.
A “working vacation” needs more than a clever label
The phrase “working vacation” has become central to the controversy because it sits awkwardly between two ideas.
A vacation suggests absence from official duties. Working suggests continued engagement with those duties. Tinubu’s trip appears to contain elements of both.
The Presidency has documented official meetings in France. It has also maintained that the President remains connected to government. Yet Nigerians have not received a detailed public account of how the extended period abroad fits into the constitutional framework governing presidential absence.
This is where transparency becomes more important than political loyalty.
A President does not lose his constitutional powers because he boards a plane. At the same time, constitutional procedures do not become irrelevant because technology allows him to work from another country.
The better standard is simple: if presidential authority continues remotely, Nigerians should be able to understand the legal basis for that arrangement.
The National Assembly has a role in this conversation too. Section 145 gives it a specific function where the constitutional conditions in the provision are met. Yet much of the public debate has remained a contest between presidential aides and opposition politicians.
That is not ideal.
Questions about executive authority should ultimately find answers in constitutional text, official records and accountable institutions. Political statements can start the conversation, but they should not be where the conversation ends.
Tinubu’s return will end the trip. It will not end the question
By Tuesday, assuming the latest schedule holds, Tinubu will return to Nigeria after roughly four weeks abroad. He is expected to participate in Independence Day activities in Lagos before returning to Abuja.
His arrival may quiet the immediate controversy. The larger issue deserves to survive the headlines.
Technology has changed the presidency. A leader can now govern across borders in ways previous generations could not imagine. Decisions can move from Paris to Abuja in seconds. A Vice-President can address the United Nations in New York while the President conducts official business in France.
The Constitution, however, remains the Constitution.
Its provisions on presidential absence were designed to make authority clear when the occupant of the office cannot perform his functions. The current controversy exposes a gap between that formal framework and the realities of a digitally connected presidency.
The most useful question is not whether Tinubu can rule Nigeria from Paris. He plainly can perform many presidential functions from there.
The real test is whether Nigerians can clearly see how he exercises that power, under what constitutional authority, and who answers for it.
A President does not have to sit physically in Aso Rock every day to govern Nigeria.
But Nigerians should never have to wonder where the Constitution places the power to govern.
