A fresh political argument has emerged over President Bola Tinubu’s decision to spend three weeks on a working vacation in Europe, with former presidential aide Reuben Abati pushing back against criticism from Atiku Abubakar’s political camp.
Abati, speaking on Arise Television’s The Morning Show on Monday, said the opposition’s criticism appeared to be based on questions that had not been sufficiently examined before being made public.
The controversy followed a statement by Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, in which he expressed concern about the President being outside Nigeria while the country continues to deal with widespread economic challenges.
Atiku described the situation as a “disturbing vacuum of political leadership,” arguing that the President’s absence raised questions about the direction of the country at a difficult period.
Abati, however, took a different position.
He maintained that there was nothing inherently unusual about the President travelling outside Nigeria for a working vacation. In his assessment, the key issue was whether Tinubu’s absence complied with the constitutional provisions governing presidential authority.
He pointed specifically to Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution and the 21-day period associated with the requirement for a formal notification and transfer of authority.
Abati said Tinubu’s trip had been structured within that period and argued that there was therefore no basis for claiming that the President had abandoned his constitutional responsibilities.
The television host also responded to suggestions from the opposition that Tinubu should not be travelling abroad.
His position was straightforward: the President is entitled to travel wherever he chooses, provided the relevant constitutional provisions are observed.
The APC has reportedly described the President’s trip as an opportunity for him to “refuel,” an explanation Abati said could stand on its own.
But Abati raised a separate concern that he believed deserved attention.
He pointed out that Vice President Kashim Shettima was also outside Nigeria when Tinubu embarked on the trip, with Shettima in Angola.
For Abati, that simultaneous absence presented a more meaningful question for the opposition to examine.
The disagreement highlights the wider political divide over how the Tinubu administration conducts its affairs and whether presidential travel should become a major issue of public concern.
For the government’s supporters, the President’s ability to continue official duties while abroad means that his physical location does not necessarily amount to a leadership vacuum.
Opposition figures, however, continue to argue that the President’s presence and visibility matter, particularly during periods of economic pressure and public concern.
As the political debate continues, attention is likely to remain focused not only on Tinubu’s overseas engagements but also on how the presidency communicates its activities to Nigerians.
