Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has asked President Bola Tinubu to explain his repeated absence from the United Nations General Assembly, questioning whether the President’s history with United States law-enforcement agencies has become a burden on Nigeria’s foreign relations.
Atiku made the demand in a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, following Tinubu’s decision to delegate Vice President Kashim Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st UNGA in New York.
According to Atiku, Tinubu was absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and the ongoing 81st session in 2026, with Shettima representing him on each occasion.
He argued that three consecutive absences could no longer be regarded as coincidence or routine delegation, but had become a pattern that required an explanation from the Presidency.
“The United Nations General Assembly is one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings. It brings together the representatives of the UN’s 193 member states and provides a unique platform for presidents and prime ministers to defend their countries’ interests, negotiate partnerships and shape global decisions on trade, security and development,” Mr Atiku said.
While acknowledging Shettima’s ability to represent the country, Atiku said the Vice President’s presence could not permanently replace the President’s personal participation at such a major diplomatic forum.
“Vice President Shettima may represent Nigeria capably, but representation by delegation cannot permanently substitute for the personal authority, visibility and responsibility of the President.
“Tinubu cannot continue to treat Nigeria’s seat at the world’s biggest diplomatic table as though it were an inconvenient appointment that can be endlessly outsourced.
“Presidential absence on the global stage has consequences. UNGA is not merely a ceremonial gathering or an annual photo opportunity. Its sidelines are where leaders hold decisive bilateral meetings, court investors, negotiate trade partnerships, mobilise development finance and make the case for their countries.
“When a President makes himself absent from that stage for three consecutive years, his country loses opportunities. Investment does not follow silence. International capital does not pursue a country whose leader repeatedly abandons the room in which consequential economic relationships are being built.
“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs. Reduced capital inflows place additional pressure on the local currency. A weaker naira raises the cost of imports, production, transportation and food. These are among the economic pressures now punishing Nigerian families through the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.
“Tinubu may consider attending UNGA a matter of personal prerogative, but the economic and diplomatic consequences of his absence are being paid by Nigerians. A President may surrender his seat, but a nation cannot escape the bill.”
Atiku also questioned the circumstances surrounding reports that Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, had secured a seat for Tinubu “not too far from where the US President, Donald Trump, will be seated.”
“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.
“If proximity to President Trump was considered such a diplomatic achievement, why did Tinubu abandon the opportunity and send his deputy? Why celebrate securing a strategic seat for the President when the President had no intention of occupying it?
“That contradiction becomes even more scandalous when Nigerians remember that Tinubu’s administration committed up to $9 million of Nigeria’s scarce foreign exchange to American lobbyists supposedly hired to improve its standing before the government and people of the United States.
“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money? Why spend millions of dollars lobbying Washington while Tinubu repeatedly stays away from New York? Why hire lobbyists to speak for Nigeria in America when the Nigerian President cannot summon the courage to appear at the world’s biggest diplomatic gathering on American soil?
“Did the lobbyists fail, or is Tinubu’s American baggage simply too heavy for any public-relations firm to carry?”
The former vice president then linked Tinubu’s repeated absence to controversies surrounding his history in the United States.
“Is Tinubu afraid that he could become Donald Trump’s next Nicolás Maduro* ?
