Twenty-one days have come and gone since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu left Nigeria on what the Presidency described as a three-week annual vacation.
Today, Nigerians are entitled to ask a very simple constitutional question: Who is in charge of Nigeria?
Section 145 of the Constitution is not ambiguous about presidential vacations. It provides that whenever the President proceeds on vacation, he shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, whereupon the Vice President performs the functions of President as Acting President.
And where the President fails to transmit that declaration within 21 days, the Constitution provides a further safeguard: the National Assembly shall, by a simple majority of each House, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President.
President Tinubu left Nigeria on 30 August. The Presidency publicly announced a three-week vacation. Yet, to date, Nigerians have not been shown any constitutional letter transmitting presidential authority to Vice President Kashim Shettima.
The 21 days have now elapsed. If such a letter exists, the Presidency should publish it immediately.
If it does not, then the constitutional mechanism contemplated by Section 145(2) has been triggered, and the National Assembly owes Nigerians an explanation as to why it has not acted.
This is not a matter of political convenience. It is a matter of constitutional order.
The situation is made even more disturbing by the fact that Vice President Shettima is himself presently in New York representing Nigeria at the United Nations General Assembly — the third consecutive UN General Assembly at which President Tinubu has delegated Nigeria’s representation to his deputy.
So again: who is exercising presidential authority in Nigeria today, and under what constitutional instrument?
Nigeria cannot be governed by assumptions. It cannot be governed by presidential social-media posts from Europe.
It cannot be governed by photographs from private dinners at the Élysée Palace.
It cannot be governed on autopilot.
While President Tinubu has been abroad, 37 Nigerians died in NSCDC custody in Minna, an incident grave enough to trigger investigations, suspensions and demands for independent scrutiny.
At the same time, petrol is selling for as much as ₦1,500 per litre in parts of the country, worsening transportation costs and squeezing families already struggling with the cost of food, electricity, rent and other necessities.
These are not ordinary times. Yet the President is abroad. The Vice President is abroad.
The Senate President is abroad.
And Nigerians have not been told, in the clear constitutional language required of a serious democracy, who is exercising the powers of the President.
President Tinubu’s private dinner with President Emmanuel Macron in Paris may serve diplomatic purposes. But Nigeria itself cannot be placed on vacation.
The Constitution does not recognise a “working vacation” as an alternative system of presidential succession.
It provides a procedure. That procedure must be obeyed.
The Presidency should therefore tell Nigerians immediately whether President Tinubu transmitted the declaration contemplated by Section 145(1) before leaving the country.
The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House should equally tell Nigerians whether such a communication was received.
And if no declaration was transmitted within the constitutionally stipulated period, the National Assembly must explain why the procedure provided by Section 145(2) has not been activated.
Nigeria is bigger than any President. At a time of severe economic hardship, rising energy costs, security challenges and the shocking deaths of citizens in government custody, the country deserves visible, accountable and constitutionally grounded leadership.
The question will not disappear: Who, constitutionally, is in charge of Nigeria?
*Atiku Abubakar
Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress and Vice President of Nigeria, 1999-2007
