The exercise of presidential power demands sound judgment in the allocation of public resources, sustained attention to national emergencies and transparency in the conduct of government. These obligations become particularly compelling when a country faces acute economic hardship, persistent insecurity and declining public confidence in its governing institutions. It is against this standard that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s pattern of foreign travel comes under scrutiny.
According to widely published reports in August 2026, an analysis of GovSpend records put presidential travel and related expenditure at approximately ₦37.64 billion between June 2023 and April 2026. The same reporting estimated that Tinubu had undertaken 52 foreign trips and spent approximately 261 days abroad since assuming office.
When he returned from a long working vacation at the end of September, on the back of loud public condemnation, the President gave the impression that he was fitter and more ready for the task of governance. In fact, at the recent flag off of the APC presidential campaign in Kaduna a few weeks ago, he announced that he would only be campaigning in a third of Nigerian states, so that he can focus better on managing the nation’s multiple challenges. Even if not many Nigerians believed the presidential excuse for choosing minimal contact with Nigerians as he seeks a second term, the excuse is arguably plausible,at least on the surface. We are therefore surprised that a president who will not engage two-thirds of Nigerians on the campaign trail, with the ostensible excuse of governance has jetted out again, on the lame excuse of going on pilgrimage to pray for Nigeria.
Stripped of all forms of sugarcoat, the latest presidential trip is an exercise in wastage and idleness. First, no country attains greatness through prayers, much less those offered by a sitting head of government.
Even if we assume without conceding that prayers are antidotes to misguided economic policies and profligate mismanagement of resources that are said to be scarce, and on account of which ruinous reforms have been introduced, the idea that such prayers can only be offered fruitfully on the soil of another country, says a lot about what the President thinks of Nigeria.
It must be, perhaps, that God Himself has so much given up on the country, that any supplication on its behalf needs to be made outside its shores to have a chance at bearing fruits.
Much more seriously however, it is very much doubtful that even the President believes himself when he says that his current trip was made on behalf of the nation. It is becoming more glaring that the President works very hard at avoiding Nigerians, whether on campaign trails or in the aftermath of a crisis,as we have seen in Benue and Jos. Beyond that, it is also more evident that the President is always at ease not only with running away from Nigerians, but also from Nigeria. The penchant for jetting out of the country on the flimsiest of excuses suggests that even the President, despite all the privileges of his office, feels more comfortable outside Nigeria, at a time when all hands are supposed to be on deck in managing the nation’s resources with frugality.
The reported ₦37.64 billion earlier referenced represents a substantial expenditure in a country confronting serious deficits in healthcare, education, infrastructure and social protection. Security agencies require effective operational support, while households and businesses continue to contend with high living costs and economic uncertainty. Under these conditions, discretionary government expenditure must satisfy rigorous standards of necessity, proportionality and public benefit.
The principle of opportunity cost is central to this assessment. Resources allocated to presidential travel cannot simultaneously be deployed elsewhere. This does not mean that travel expenditure is inherently wasteful or that the reported sum would, by itself, have resolved Nigeria’s socioeconomic problems. It means that the Presidency must demonstrate why the expenditure was justified, what it achieved and whether less costly alternatives could have delivered comparable results.
The problem is compounded by inadequate public visibility into the relationship between travel expenditure and outcomes. Nigerians deserve an itemised account of the principal costs, including aircraft operations, accommodation, security, logistics and delegation expenses. They also deserve clear reports identifying the objectives of major journeys, the agreements secured and the extent to which announced commitments have been implemented. Legitimate security and diplomatic confidentiality may justify withholding particular details, but they cannot serve as a blanket exemption from financial accountability.
The allocation of presidential time is itself a substantive governance concern. Nigeria faces persistent insecurity, attacks on communities, kidnappings, displacement and the destruction of livelihoods. These challenges require sustained executive oversight, effective institutional coordination and credible accountability. Economic pressures likewise demand attention to policy implementation, social protection and the restoration of public confidence.
The Presidency has maintained that Tinubu continued to handle official business while abroad, including directing an investigation into the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in Minna while he was in France. While such interventions are relevant and ought to be acknowledged, individual examples of remote engagement do not settle the broader question of whether the administration consistently demonstrates the urgency, responsiveness and accountability that serious domestic crises demand.
This debate cannot be separated from the economic consequences of the Tinubu administration’s policies. Petrol subsidy removal and exchange-rate reforms were defended as necessary measures to address longstanding fiscal and structural weaknesses. Their legitimacy, however, depends not only on their stated objectives but also on their implementation, distributional consequences and measurable results.
When households struggle with food and transport costs, businesses face rising operating expenses and workers experience pressure on their real incomes, the government must demonstrate that its economic programme is producing credible progress. Public confidence depends partly on whether the sacrifices demanded of citizens are matched by discipline in government expenditure.
For us as Omo Oduduwa Collective, the government cannot reasonably demand fiscal restraint from the population, while providing inadequate explanations for its own discretionary commitments. We therefore request the Presidency to publish an itemised, auditable account of travel expenditure; provide clear objectives for major trips; disclose measurable outcomes; and explain why presidential attendance is necessary when senior officials could adequately represent Nigeria, where applicable. The National Assembly and relevant audit institutions is also called upon to scrutinise compliance with appropriations and applicable financial regulations. We also believe that there should be a clear protocol for governing executive coordination and public communication during serious domestic emergencies when the President is abroad.
Such measures would strengthen the Presidency by replacing speculation with verifiable evidence. They would also establish a consistent standard for assessing whether international engagements justify their financial and administrative costs.
Nigeria does not require a president permanently confined within its borders, but it requires one whose international engagements are purposeful, one with defensible expenditure, and whose attention to domestic governance is beyond reasonable doubt.
The authority and privileges conferred by public service does not provide exemption from adequate explanation, but imposes the duty of prudence and transparency. There must be no doubt as to the understanding of this fact, both by the presidency and every other institution entrusted with the resources and confidence of the Nigerian people.
Signed:
Professor Akinyemi Onigbinde (Convener)
Senator Babafemi Ojudu
Dr Adeolu Oyekan
Dr Sunkanmi Olapeju
Mr Arinloye Samuel Adebisi
Mr Kazeem Olasupo
For: Omo Oduduwa Collective
