Tinubu, Shettima Abroad: The Constitutional Question Over Who Runs Nigeria

By NJORIGE LYNUS

Two Leaders, One Unusual Situation

PRESIDENT Bola Tinubu’s extended working vacation in France and Vice President Kashim Shettima’s official engagements in India and, subsequently, New York have opened a fresh debate over the exercise of executive authority in Nigeria.

Tinubu left Nigeria on 30 August for a working vacation, travelling first to London and later to Paris. The Presidency subsequently announced that he had extended the trip by a few days and was expected back in Nigeria at the weekend.

Meanwhile, Shettima, who had represented Tinubu at the 18th BRICS Leaders’ Summit in India, travelled to New York on 20 September to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly.

His assignment includes delivering Nigeria’s national statement and participating in high-level and bilateral meetings.

The unusual coincidence is that Nigeria’s two highest-ranking political office holders are outside the country at the same time.

That circumstance has revived questions about who exercises presidential authority, whether Tinubu is required to formally transmit power while on vacation, and what constitutional arrangement applies when the Vice President is also abroad.

What Section 145 Says

At the centre of the debate is Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution.

The provision establishes a procedure for the President’s temporary absence. Where the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he is required to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Until another declaration is made, the Vice President performs the functions of the President as Acting President.

The provision also contains a 21-day mechanism. If the President fails to transmit the declaration within that period, the National Assembly may, by a simple majority in both chambers, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President until the President communicates his readiness to resume office.

The present wording of the provision emerged from the constitutional reforms that followed the crisis surrounding the prolonged absence of the late President Umaru Yar’Adua.

Yar’Adua & the Lesson of 2010

Nigeria’s experience under Yar’Adua remains central to any discussion about presidential absence.

Yar’Adua travelled to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment in November 2009 but did not submit the written declaration required under Section 145 as it then stood.

His prolonged absence created a constitutional dilemma. Vice President Goodluck Jonathan could not formally assume the powers of Acting President.

After 78 days, on 9th February 2010, the National Assembly invoked the doctrine of necessity to recognise Jonathan as Acting President.

The intervention itself generated constitutional controversy. However, the episode ultimately contributed to the 2010 constitutional amendment that strengthened the procedure for temporary presidential absence.

The amendment made written transmission mandatory and introduced the 21-day mechanism through which the National Assembly could empower the Vice President to act.

Buhari’s Precedent

The procedure was more routinely formalised during the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari.

Buhari notified the National Assembly during several vacations and medical trips and transferred presidential functions to Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.

Even then, questions over the precise wording of the transfer emerged.

In May 2017, Buhari informed the National Assembly that Osinbajo would “coordinate the activities of government” during his medical trip. The Senate objected to the wording and insisted that Osinbajo should function as Acting President under Section 145.

That history has become relevant again as the country examines the circumstances surrounding Tinubu’s current absence.

The Presidency’s Position

Since Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, questions have previously been raised about whether he formally transmitted presidential powers during foreign vacations.

The Presidency has maintained that there was no leadership vacuum because the President remained engaged with government affairs while abroad.

The latest situation has attracted renewed attention because Tinubu’s original three-week vacation elapsed on September 20, the same day Shettima departed Nigeria for the UN General Assembly.

The Presidency has insisted that Tinubu remains in touch with developments at home and continues to direct government affairs.

It cited, among other actions, his directive for an independent panel to investigate the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in Minna.

The government has also emphasised that Shettima is representing the President and Nigeria at the UNGA, where he is expected to deliver the country’s national statement.

Competing Legal & Political Interpretations

Legal practitioner Ehidiamen Isibor of E.O. Isibor Attorneys Law Office, Abuja, argues that Section 145 was specifically designed for situations in which a President proceeds on vacation or becomes unable to discharge his functions.

In his interpretation, the written declaration provides the formal constitutional basis for the Vice President to act.

The situation becomes more complicated, however, because Shettima is not in Nigeria to perform presidential functions. He is himself abroad on official duty.

Opposition voices have consequently questioned the constitutional implications.

African Democratic Congress National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi has asked who is constitutionally in charge when both Tinubu and Shettima are outside Nigeria. He has also questioned the role of Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume, who has represented the President at some official engagements.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has similarly questioned the absence of a publicly disclosed letter transmitting presidential authority to Shettima, particularly after the 21-day period.

Emmanuel Onwubiko of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria has argued that the President should formally hand over to the Vice President while operating outside Nigeria on vacation.

Is Physical Presence the Test?

That interpretation is not universally shared.

Dr Kunle Yusuf, Director-General of the Civil Society Organisation on Community Advancement and Humanitarian Empowerment Initiative, argues that governance cannot necessarily be reduced to the physical location of the President or Vice President.

According to this view, ministers, career officials and government institutions continue to implement decisions regardless of where the President is physically located.

The growth of electronic governance, Yusuf argues, also means physical presence does not automatically determine whether a government can function.

The competing interpretations therefore expose a larger question: is the constitutional issue about physical absence, inability to govern, or formal compliance with Section 145?

Absence Is Not the Same as Vacancy

Another important distinction lies in Section 146.

The provision deals with an actual vacancy in the presidency arising from circumstances such as death, resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or removal from office.

In such circumstances, the Vice President assumes the office of President.

The Senate President enters the succession arrangement only when both the offices of President and Vice President become vacant.

Therefore, the Constitution does not expressly make the Senate President Acting President simply because the President and Vice President happen to be outside Nigeria at the same time.

Neither Tinubu nor Shettima has ceased to hold office.

Their absence is consequently different from a constitutional vacancy.

The Unanswered Question

The more immediate issue is whether Tinubu has transmitted the written declaration contemplated by Section 145 and, if he has, what arrangements exist for the exercise of presidential functions while Shettima is also outside the country.

The Constitution does not expressly establish a separate procedure for the unusual situation in which both the President and the Vice President are abroad simultaneously.

Isibor has acknowledged that such circumstances could become particularly significant during an emergency requiring an immediate decision at the highest level of government. He suggested that the Senate President could potentially become relevant under the doctrine of necessity, but stressed that this would not amount to an automatic constitutional transfer of presidential powers.

For Onwubiko, continued exercise of presidential functions from abroad without a formal handover remains problematic.

Yusuf, meanwhile, maintains that the more important consideration is whether the machinery of government continues to function.

Beyond the Immediate Controversy

The dispute ultimately goes beyond the travel schedules of Tinubu and Shettima.

It raises broader questions about how Nigeria interprets executive authority in an era in which decisions can be communicated, coordinated and implemented remotely.

More importantly, it raises a question of institutional clarity: if the President and Vice President are simultaneously outside Nigeria and an emergency requires an immediate presidential decision, who possesses the authority to act?

The question assumes additional political significance as preparations for the 2027 elections intensify.

For now, the constitutional distinction remains clear between temporary absence under Section 145 and an actual vacancy under Section 146.

What remains less clear is whether the constitutional procedure governing temporary transfer of presidential functions has been fully activated in the present circumstances.

That unresolved question, rather than simply the fact that Nigeria’s two highest-ranking political leaders are abroad, sits at the centre of the debate over who runs Nigeria.