Opposition parties and other critics have questioned President Bola Tinubu’s absence from the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York and the circumstances surrounding his leave, alleging that the President failed to comply with constitutional requirements governing presidential absence from the country.
The controversy centres on Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for the President to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives when proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office.
The provision has sparked differing interpretations over whether such a declaration was required in the circumstances of Tinubu’s absence and whether there was a formal transfer of presidential functions to Vice President Kashim Shettima.
Former presidential aide Paul Ibe called on the National Assembly to impeach Tinubu, alleging that the President breached the Constitution by failing to transmit the required written declaration.
VIDEO NEWS: “He [President Bola Tinubu] should be impeached.” – Paul Ibe.
Paul Ibe and APC member Oke Idawene have presented opposing views on calls to impeach the president. pic.twitter.com/z7xfTap021
— The Compass Hub (@thecompasshub) September 23, 2026
The Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC, also criticised Tinubu over his absence from the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, describing it as his third consecutive failure to attend the gathering since assuming office in 2023.
In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, the party questioned the President’s more than three-week absence from Nigeria, alleging that it had created a governance vacuum.
The NDC further accused Tinubu of failing to comply with Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, which it said requires a written declaration to be transmitted to the National Assembly whenever the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office.
The party called for greater transparency regarding the President’s whereabouts and health status, compliance with the constitutional provisions, and an end to what it described as informal governance from abroad.
The controversy has also moved to the courts.
The African Action Congress, AAC, filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja on September 28, challenging what it described as the failure to formally transfer presidential powers to Vice President Kashim Shettima.
The suit, filed through the party’s National Legal Adviser, Inibehe Effiong, is seeking a declaration that Tinubu’s alleged failure to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as provided under Section 145 of the Constitution, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
AAC DRAGS TINUBU, AGF, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY TO COURT OVER REFUSAL TO HANDOVER POWER TO VP SHETTIMA DURING VACATION
The African Action Congress (AAC) has filed a lawsuit at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging President Bola Tinubu’s refusal to handover power to the Vice… pic.twitter.com/tq9ISIUiyy
— Inibehe Effiong (@InibeheEffiong) September 28, 2026
The AAC is also asking the court to declare that the National Assembly’s alleged failure to pass a resolution authorising Shettima to perform the functions of Acting President after Tinubu’s absence exceeded 21 days is unconstitutional.
Named as defendants in the suit are President Bola Tinubu, Attorney-General of the Federation Lateef Fagbemi, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas and the National Assembly.
The AAC is further seeking an injunction restraining Tinubu and future presidents from proceeding on vacation without complying with the constitutional requirements.
Sowore’s AAC sues Tinubu over failure to transfer power to Vice President Shettima during his extended absence pic.twitter.com/6kgyJBd9yg
— YabaLeftOnline (@yabaleftonline) September 29, 2026
As the debate continues, the key question is what Section 145 of the Constitution actually requires and whether the President’s absence amounted to a constitutional violation.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio has maintained that Tinubu remains in office and continues to perform his presidential functions despite being away from the country on what he described as working leave.
Akpabio said there was no vacancy in the presidency, arguing that the President could continue to issue directives and administer the affairs of the country while outside Nigeria.
I am the Senate President and not the acting President of Nigeria because President Tinubu is still in power. He’s on a working leave, and there’s no absence in Aso Rock. He was with French President Macron the other day. I am the only person who can declare a vacancy and there… pic.twitter.com/Xvstbw17f5
— Nigerian Affairs Journal (@NigAffairs) September 22, 2026
Although President Tinubu has since returned to Nigeria, the controversy over the constitutional requirements governing presidential absence continues to generate debate.
The disagreement has centred on the interpretation and application of Section 145, the extent of the President’s powers while outside the country, and whether a formal transfer of presidential functions to the Vice President was constitutionally required in the circumstances.
With political parties divided over the issue and the matter now before the courts, the legal implications of the President’s absence and the requirements of Section 145 remain subject to judicial determination.
When Bayo Onanuga did a long post that Tinubu is “Hale and Hearty” I knew immediately that something was wrong. You can find my response on my TL.
When Onanuga tells you, something is black, just know the color is white. When he says turn left, pls if you love your life turn…
— Jude Heavenly 🇳🇬🇱🇷 (@JudeHeavenly) September 29, 2026
