Chidi Odinkalu, a former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), has publicly criticized President Bola Tinubu’s prolonged absence from Nigeria, warning that the country cannot be governed effectively from abroad. Odinkalu, a legal scholar and human rights advocate, drew a stark comparison between Tinubu’s leadership and that of Cameroonian President Paul Biya, who has maintained a long-standing presence in his country despite frequent international travel. The remarks, made during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today, have reignited debates over the constitutional and practical responsibilities of Nigeria’s leadership during periods of absence.
Odinkalu emphasized that previous Nigerian administrations, including those of Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Yar’Adua, Goodluck Jonathan, and Muhammadu Buhari, adhered to a long-standing convention: one of the two top executives—either the president or vice president—remained in the country when the other was abroad. This practice, he argued, ensured continuity of governance and prevented leadership vacuums. 'It never happened before. As a rule, as a convention, pretty much a binding convention of government, no president allowed himself to be out of the country with the vice president at the same time,' Odinkalu stated, citing historical precedents.
The former NHRC chairman questioned whether current leaders fully grasp the constitutional and practical obligations of their roles. 'The question, therefore, you’ve got to pose is do the current people running the country even think or understand what the obligations of running the country are before we get into the constitutional text?' he asked. Odinkalu’s remarks underscored concerns about the potential for governance gaps, particularly as Tinubu and Shettima have both been absent from Nigeria for extended periods this year.
Tinubu’s absence began on August 30, when he departed Abuja for a three-week working vacation in Europe. His itinerary included London and Paris, where he met French President Emmanuel Macron and businessman Vincent Bollore. The presidency later extended his stay by a few days, with Tinubu returning to Nigeria by the weekend. During this time, Vice President Kashim Shettima left for New York on September 20 to represent the president at the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), delivering Nigeria’s national statement. The presidency confirmed that Shettima had the president’s full mandate to act on his behalf, with Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume overseeing domestic affairs in Tinubu’s absence.
Odinkalu criticized the practice of delegating presidential functions to Akume, arguing that the 1999 Constitution’s Section 145—which outlines the transfer of presidential duties during absence—requires a formal declaration. The provision mandates that the president transmit a written notice to the Senate President and House Speaker, with the vice president assuming acting presidential duties unless a contrary declaration is made. If the president fails to submit the declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly may intervene to appoint the vice president as acting president. 'Focusing solely on a technical reading of the Constitution could obscure the broader obligation of those holding public office,' Odinkalu said, emphasizing the need for active leadership rather than procedural compliance.
The former NHRC chairman described Tinubu’s absence as 'japa,' a Nigerian slang term for leaving the country in pursuit of better opportunities. He warned that governing Nigeria from abroad, as Biya does in Cameroon, risks destabilizing the nation. 'Tinubu cannot interminably run Nigeria like Paul Biya runs Cameroon,' Odinkalu asserted. His comments reflect broader concerns about the implications of prolonged executive absence on national governance, particularly in a country grappling with economic and security challenges.
The issue has drawn criticism from other political figures, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who questioned who is effectively in charge of Nigeria during Tinubu’s absence. Abubakar’s remarks align with growing public skepticism about the transparency and accountability of the current administration. Meanwhile, the federal government has defended Tinubu’s decisions, stating that Shettima’s representation at the UNGA ensures Nigeria’s full participation in global discussions. This is the third consecutive year that Tinubu has delegated his UNGA duties to Shettima, a practice that has sparked debates about the president’s engagement with international diplomacy.
Odinkalu’s critique also highlights the constitutional framework governing leadership transitions. While Section 145 provides a legal mechanism for transferring authority, the former NHRC chairman argued that the spirit of the law requires active leadership. 'Running a country requires common sense,' he said, stressing that the constitution’s intent is to ensure effective governance, not merely to follow procedural formalities. This perspective has resonated with legal experts and civil society groups who advocate for stricter adherence to constitutional norms.
The controversy has intensified amid Nigeria’s ongoing challenges, including economic instability, security threats, and public disillusionment with political leadership. Critics argue that prolonged executive absences exacerbate these issues by creating a perception of neglect. Odinkalu’s comments reflect a broader call for accountability, urging leaders to prioritize the nation’s interests over personal or political convenience.
The debate over Tinubu’s absence also intersects with questions about the role of the vice president in Nigerian governance. Shettima’s extended presence at the UNGA has raised concerns about the balance of power within the executive branch. While the vice president’s role is constitutionally defined, the current situation has prompted discussions about the need for clearer guidelines on leadership responsibilities during periods of absence.
Odinkalu’s remarks have been met with mixed reactions. Supporters praise his emphasis on constitutional integrity and leadership accountability, while critics argue that his focus on historical precedents overlooks the complexities of modern governance. The former NHRC chairman’s comments have also sparked a broader conversation about the need for institutional reforms to prevent future leadership vacuums.
The situation underscores the importance of transparency in executive decision-making. As Nigeria navigates its political and economic challenges, the absence of its top leaders has become a focal point for public scrutiny. Odinkalu’s critique serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between constitutional compliance and effective governance, particularly in a nation where leadership stability is critical to national progress.
The ongoing debate has also highlighted the role of the media in holding leaders accountable. Premium Times, the source of the original report, has consistently covered issues related to governance, corruption, and leadership accountability. Odinkalu’s comments, as reported by the outlet, contribute to a broader narrative of public demand for transparency and responsible leadership.
As the discussion continues, the Nigerian public remains divided on the implications of Tinubu’s absence. While some argue that international engagements are necessary for diplomacy, others emphasize the need for leaders to prioritize domestic responsibilities. The situation has also raised questions about the long-term impact of such absences on public trust in government institutions.
Odinkalu’s warnings serve as a cautionary note for Nigerian leaders, urging them to uphold the principles of effective governance. His critique, rooted in constitutional analysis and historical context, underscores the importance of leadership that is both constitutionally sound and responsive to the needs of the nation. As Nigeria moves forward, the balance between international engagement and domestic responsibility will remain a critical issue for its leaders.
The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s absence has also drawn attention to the broader challenges facing Nigerian governance. From economic management to security reforms, the country’s leadership is under pressure to demonstrate competence and commitment. Odinkalu’s comments, while focused on a specific issue, reflect a larger demand for accountability and transparency in public office.
In conclusion, the debate over Tinubu’s absence highlights the complex interplay between constitutional law, leadership practices, and public expectations. As Nigeria continues to grapple with its challenges, the need for effective, accountable governance remains paramount. Odinkalu’s critique, while critical of current practices, also serves as a call to action for leaders to prioritize the nation’s interests above all else.
The issue of executive absence has also sparked discussions about the role of the National Assembly in overseeing governance. While the legislature has the authority to intervene in cases of prolonged leadership vacuums, its effectiveness in such scenarios remains a subject of debate. The current situation has prompted calls for greater legislative vigilance to ensure that constitutional provisions are upheld and that the country’s leadership remains accountable to the people.