The camp of former vice-president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has questioned President Bola Tinubu’s prolonged stay in France.
This was just as the camp demanded clarification over his extended vacation and compliance with constitutional provisions governing presidential absence.
Atiku’s media aide, Paul Ibe, raised the concerns in a statement posted on his X account on Sunday, following reports that Tinubu had postponed his return to Nigeria again.
Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for London, with the Presidency describing the trip as a three-week working vacation as part of his annual leave.
After spending about a week in the United Kingdom, the President travelled to Paris, France, where he held meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron and businessman Vincent Bolloré.
The Presidency later announced that Tinubu had extended his stay abroad by a few days and was expected to return to Nigeria at the weekend.
However, reports on Sunday indicated that his return had been postponed again, with Tuesday now being reported as the likely return date.
The reason for the latest change in his travel plans was not immediately disclosed.
Reacting to the development, Ibe questioned what was keeping the President in France while Nigeria continued to face security, economic and cost-of-living challenges.
He also raised constitutional questions concerning the President’s absence, particularly Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution.
Section 145(1) provides that when 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 Speaker of the House of Representatives, stating that he is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge his functions.
The provision allows the Vice-President to perform the functions of President as Acting President during the period.
Ibe argued that the provision becomes particularly relevant when a presidential absence exceeds 21 days, asking whether Tinubu had transmitted the required declaration to the National Assembly.
“So where is the letter? If it was transmitted, let the Presidency, Senate President or Speaker publish it,” he said.
He further asked why the constitutional procedure had allegedly not been followed if no declaration was transmitted.
Atiku’s aide also cited former President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, noting that presidential functions were transferred to then Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo on several occasions during Buhari’s tenure.
He said the transfers included formal communications to the National Assembly under Section 145.
Ibe also referred to speculation surrounding the reason for Tinubu’s prolonged stay in France, including reports suggesting that the President could be in the country for medical reasons.
He argued that such speculation made it more important for the Presidency to provide clarity on the President’s prolonged absence.
“President Tinubu has now been away for 28 days, seven days longer than 21 days,” Ibe said.
He added that Nigerians deserved to know why the President had remained abroad beyond the period initially announced for his vacation and whether the constitutional requirements had been fulfilled.
Meanwhile, the Presidency had maintained that Tinubu remained in contact with officials in Nigeria and continued to direct government affairs while abroad.
