President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s extended stay outside Nigeria has created a question that is bigger than whether a president should travel: what happens to constitutional authority when the President is abroad for weeks, calls the absence a “working vacation,” and the Vice President is also outside the country?
The comparison with Cameroon’s long-serving President Paul Biya is increasingly being raised because Biya has faced criticism over governing while spending extended periods outside Cameroon. But the comparison needs to be made carefully: there is no established evidence that Tinubu has deliberately adopted a “Biya model.” What can be examined are the similarities in the pattern of governing from abroad and, more importantly, whether Nigeria's Constitution permits the arrangement now unfolding.
The timeline matters
Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30, 2026, initially for what the Presidency described as a three-week working vacation.
He travelled first to London and subsequently to Paris, where he met French President Emmanuel Macron and businessman Vincent Bolloré.
On September 21, the Presidency announced that Tinubu had extended the vacation by several days and would return to Nigeria at the weekend. It said he had remained in contact with officials at home and continued directing government business while abroad. (statehouse.gov.ng)
But another fact makes the situation constitutionally unusual.
Vice President Kashim Shettima left Nigeria on September 20 for New York to represent Nigeria at the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
That means that, at the same time, both the President and Vice President were outside Nigeria.
The Presidency says the government continued functioning, with Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume representing the President at some official engagements. (statehouse.gov.ng)
That, however, raises a distinction that is extremely important:
Representing the President at an event is not necessarily the same thing as constitutionally exercising the powers of the President.
And that brings us to Section 145.
What does Nigeria's Constitution actually say?
Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is unusually specific.
It provides that whenever the President is “proceeding on vacation” or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office, the President shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Until the President transmits a declaration to the contrary, the Vice President performs the functions of President as Acting President. (placng.org)
The important word here is “shall.”
The constitutional procedure was not created simply as an administrative courtesy.
It was designed to establish clearly who is exercising presidential functions when the President is temporarily unavailable.
And subsection 145(2) goes further.
If the President fails or is unable to transmit the declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly is required to act through resolutions of both chambers to mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President. (wipo.int)
This provision was strengthened after Nigeria experienced one of its most serious constitutional crises.
The ghost of Yar’Adua
The current controversy cannot really be understood without remembering Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.
In 2009, Yar’Adua travelled to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment and remained away from Nigeria for an extended period.
The problem was not simply that the President was outside Nigeria.
The problem was who constitutionally possessed the authority to exercise presidential powers while he was away?
Yar’Adua had not transmitted the required declaration.
Vice President Goodluck Jonathan therefore found himself in a constitutionally ambiguous position.
The crisis eventually resulted in the National Assembly invoking what became known as the Doctrine of Necessity, allowing Jonathan to assume presidential functions.
The constitutional amendment that followed created the present 21-day mechanism.
In other words, Section 145 is partly a constitutional response to the Yar’Adua experience.
It was intended to make the country less dependent on political assumptions when a President is absent.
That history makes today's argument more significant than an ordinary dispute about presidential travel.
So is Tinubu violating the Constitution?
This requires precision.
There is currently a public dispute over whether Tinubu transmitted the required Section 145 declaration.
Several opposition politicians and lawmakers have demanded that the Presidency and National Assembly clarify whether such a declaration was transmitted.
Some legal commentators have gone further and argued that the constitutional requirement has been breached.
For example, lawyer Inibehe Effiong argued publicly that Section 145 required a formal transfer of presidential functions and that the 21-day period had elapsed. (channelstv.com)
Some House members have similarly called on the National Assembly to determine whether Tinubu transmitted the declaration and, if not, whether the constitutional mechanism should be activated. (Premium Times Nigeria)
But there is another side.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio has maintained that Tinubu remains in charge and that there is no vacancy in the presidency because the President continues to direct government affairs from abroad. (punchng.com)
The Presidency's own position is essentially that physical presence in Nigeria is not necessary for Tinubu to continue performing presidential duties, because he remains in communication with officials and continues issuing directives. (statehouse.gov.ng)
That is the central constitutional disagreement.
The question is therefore not:
“Can a Nigerian President travel abroad?”
Obviously, yes.
The more precise question is:
“When a President describes his absence as a vacation, what constitutional procedure must follow?”
And a related question is:
“Can informal remote control of government substitute for the formal constitutional mechanism in Section 145?”
That is ultimately a matter for constitutional interpretation and, if necessary, judicial determination.
Where the Paul Biya comparison comes from
Cameroon's President Paul Biya provides an interesting comparison.
Biya has governed Cameroon since 1982 and, at 93, is the world's oldest serving president.
In 2026, he spent more than two months abroad, primarily in Switzerland, in an absence that generated significant debate about who was effectively running Cameroon.
Reuters reported that Biya's prolonged absence created renewed concern about his ability to govern and about the country's constitutional arrangements. (reuters.com)
The Associated Press similarly reported criticism that Cameroon was effectively operating on “autopilot” during his extended absence. (apnews.com)
There is, however, an important constitutional difference between Cameroon and Nigeria.
Nigeria has an express constitutional mechanism dealing with presidential absence: Section 145.
The question in Nigeria is therefore unusually concrete.
The country does not have to invent a procedure from scratch.
It already has one.
Tinubu is not Paul Biya — but the comparison raises a legitimate institutional question
Calling Tinubu's approach a deliberate “Paul Biya model” would go beyond the available evidence.
There is no evidence establishing that Tinubu has consciously adopted Biya's governing method.
But comparisons can still be useful when they identify a structural pattern.
The pattern being debated is:
President abroad → government continues remotely → officials represent him at events → prolonged absence → uncertainty about formal transfer of executive authority.
That pattern deserves scrutiny regardless of the personalities involved.
A constitutional democracy should ideally make the answer to “Who is exercising presidential powers?” straightforward.
It should not depend primarily on whether the President is answering phone calls.
But what about Emmanuel Macron?
This is where another interesting irony has entered the Nigerian debate.
Tinubu was in Paris after meeting French President Emmanuel Macron.
Then Macron travelled to New York for the United Nations General Assembly.
France's Élysée Palace says Macron was in New York from September 21 to September 23, 2026, specifically to participate in the 81st UN General Assembly. (elysee.fr)
So there is an obvious contrast.
The French President left France for an international diplomatic engagement.
The Nigerian President remained in France while Nigeria's Vice President travelled to New York to represent Nigeria.
But the comparison should not be reduced to geography.
A president being outside his country is not inherently unconstitutional.
Macron being in New York does not mean he abandoned the French presidency.
Likewise, Tinubu being in Paris does not automatically mean he abandoned the Nigerian presidency.
The relevant question is what constitutional arrangements govern the absence.
That is where the Nigerian debate becomes much more interesting.
And then there is the Nigerian who “japa-ed” to become a housekeeper
There is another uncomfortable conversation Nigerians should have.
Millions of Nigerians have left the country in search of employment and opportunity.
Some work abroad as doctors, nurses, engineers, software developers and academics.
Others work in construction, hospitality, domestic services, caregiving, cleaning and other occupations.
There is nothing inherently shameful about honest work.
A Nigerian who leaves Nigeria and works as a housekeeper is still a Nigerian citizen trying to build a life.
The irony emerges when Nigerians begin treating certain forms of work abroad as evidence of personal failure while simultaneously accepting a political culture in which public officials can spend extended periods abroad while the country they govern remains at home.
The two situations are obviously not legally or institutionally equivalent.
A housekeeper abroad has an employment contract.
A President has constitutional responsibilities.
A housekeeper does not exercise sovereign executive authority over 230 million people.
A President does.
That distinction is precisely why the debate over Tinubu's absence should be about constitutional accountability rather than mocking Nigerians who migrate for work.
The bigger question: Does technology change the Constitution?
The Presidency's defence raises an important 21st-century question.
If a president can communicate instantly through phones, secure communications, video conferences and digital government systems, does physical presence still matter?
Technologically, perhaps much less than it once did.
Constitutionally, however, technology does not automatically rewrite the law.
Nigeria's Constitution still establishes particular offices and procedures.
Section 145 does not say:
“Whenever the President goes on vacation, he may remain in charge provided he has a working telephone.”
It establishes a written declaration procedure.
That matters because presidential power is not merely about sending instructions.
Some presidential functions involve appointments, security, military authority, constitutional responsibilities and other acts whose legitimacy depends on the person exercising the power.
That is why formal constitutional authority matters.
The most important question may actually be one nobody has answered publicly
Did President Tinubu transmit the Section 145 declaration?
That is the simplest question.
If the answer is yes, the Presidency can publish or otherwise confirm that fact, and much of the constitutional controversy would become considerably clearer.
If the answer is no, then another question arises:
Why has the constitutional mechanism not been activated after more than 21 days?
As of the latest reporting, the Presidency has publicly explained that Tinubu remains in contact with Nigeria and continues directing government affairs, but the reports cited here do not provide the public with the actual Section 145 declaration. (statehouse.gov.ng)
That does not by itself prove that no declaration exists.
It means the issue remains publicly unresolved.
And that distinction matters.
Nigeria should not have a “President on autopilot” problem
The lesson from Yar’Adua was that constitutional ambiguity around presidential absence can become dangerous.
The solution adopted after that crisis was supposed to be greater clarity.
Nigeria therefore has an institutional interest in ensuring that presidential absence does not become a matter of political interpretation.
The President can travel.
The Vice President can travel.
The President can attend meetings abroad.
The Vice President can represent Nigeria at the UN.
The government can continue functioning digitally.
None of those propositions is inherently problematic.
But constitutional authority should remain identifiable.
If the President is exercising the powers of the President from Paris, Nigerians should know the constitutional basis.
If the Vice President is acting as President, Nigerians should know.
If the President has formally complied with Section 145, Nigerians should know.
And if the National Assembly is required to act under Section 145(2), it should explain what it has done.
The real danger is normalising ambiguity
This is ultimately bigger than Bola Tinubu.
It is about what happens when constitutional procedures become secondary to political assurances.
Today the President is abroad.
Tomorrow another President could spend several months outside Nigeria.
Another Vice President could be abroad.
Another government could argue that modern communications make physical presence irrelevant.
If Nigerians accept informal arrangements today, a future administration could rely on the same precedent under very different circumstances.
That is why the question should not simply be:
“Where is Tinubu?”
The more important question is:
“Where is the constitutional authority?”
Nigeria's Constitution already provides an answer for presidential vacation and temporary inability.
The country now needs transparency about whether that procedure was followed.
The Macron irony
Macron being in New York while Tinubu remains in Paris is certainly striking.
But the lesson is not that “a real president must always be physically in his country.”
Presidents routinely travel.
The lesson is more fundamental:
Presidential travel is normal. Constitutional ambiguity is not.
France's president can travel to New York for the UN General Assembly and still exercise the French presidency.
Nigeria's president can travel to London or Paris and still remain president.
The issue is not the passport stamp.
It is the constitutional chain of authority.
And that is why the Tinubu–Biya comparison should be treated not as a claim that Tinubu is Paul Biya, but as a warning about what happens when a presidency begins to operate for extended periods from outside the country while the formal status of presidential authority becomes unclear.
For a democracy that already experienced the Yar’Adua constitutional crisis, that is a question worth answering publicly.
Not because Nigerians need their President physically sitting in Abuja every morning — but because Nigerians have a right to know, at every moment, who constitutionally holds the power of the Nigerian presidency.
Comments
Post a Comment