ABUJA, Nigeria. The African Action Congress has taken President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly to the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking judges to decide whether the president breached Nigeria’s Constitution by spending nearly a month in Europe without formally transferring presidential functions to Vice President Kashim Shettima.
Tinubu left Nigeria on Aug. 30 for what the Presidency described as a three week working vacation, beginning in London before continuing to Paris. His return was initially expected around Sept. 21, but the Presidency later announced that the leave had been extended by several days. It said Tinubu remained in contact with officials and continued directing government affairs while abroad.
The AAC argues that working remotely does not settle the constitutional question. Section 145 of Nigeria’s Constitution states that when a president proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to perform the functions of the office, a written declaration should be transmitted to the Senate president and the speaker of the House of Representatives. After that notification, the vice president performs presidential functions as acting president.
The same section provides another safeguard if the written declaration is not transmitted within 21 days. In that situation, both chambers of the National Assembly can, by a simple majority, mandate the vice president to serve as acting president. The AAC is asking the court to determine whether lawmakers should have used that provision after Tinubu’s absence passed the 21 day mark.
The party has also asked for an order preventing future presidential vacations without compliance with the constitutional procedure. Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, House Speaker Tajudeen Abbas and the National Assembly were joined in the case.
The Presidency has defended Tinubu’s ability to continue working while outside Nigeria. It said he issued directives during the vacation, maintained contact with officials and delegated Vice President Shettima to represent him at some events, including the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
Legal opinion has not been entirely uniform. Some constitutional lawyers argue that the word “shall” in Section 145 creates an immediate obligation to notify lawmakers whenever a president begins a vacation. Others argue that the 21 day provision gives the Constitution room to address a presidential absence before parliamentary intervention becomes necessary. The Federal High Court now has an opportunity to examine that disagreement.
The controversy has also generated discussion among Nigerians, particularly when Tinubu, Shettima and Senate President Akpabio were all outside the country during part of September. Some members of the public questioned who was exercising day to day presidential authority. Those reactions represent individual opinions rather than evidence of nationwide public sentiment.
Nigeria has faced a more serious dispute over presidential absence before. In late 2009, President Umaru Yar’Adua travelled to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment without formally handing authority to Vice President Goodluck Jonathan. After more than two months of uncertainty, the National Assembly relied on what it called the doctrine of necessity in February 2010 to make Jonathan acting president. Yar’Adua died in May that year, and the Constitution was later amended to strengthen procedures governing temporary presidential absence.
Tinubu’s predecessors have handled vacations differently. President Muhammadu Buhari repeatedly transmitted letters to the National Assembly before medical trips and periods of leave, allowing Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to serve as acting president.
For Nigerians, the case goes beyond where a president spends his vacation. It raises questions about how presidential authority should be transferred when the head of government is away, who is empowered to make presidential decisions during that period and what responsibility lawmakers have when the formal procedure is not followed. The court’s eventual interpretation could influence how future Nigerian presidents handle vacations and other temporary absences.
