By James Adamu
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned President Bola Tinubu’s third consecutive absence from the United Nations General Assembly, asking whether the President’s history with United States authorities has become a burden on Nigeria’s foreign relations.
Atiku said Tinubu has now missed the UN’s biggest annual diplomatic gathering for three straight years, leaving Vice President Kashim Shettima to represent Nigeria. He insisted the pattern could no longer be dismissed as routine delegation.
In a statement on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku noted that Tinubu was absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and the ongoing 81st session in 2026.
“The United Nations General Assembly is one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings,” Atiku said, explaining that it gives national leaders the chance to defend their countries’ interests, negotiate partnerships and shape decisions on trade, security and development.
He acknowledged that Shettima could represent Nigeria capably, but maintained that repeated delegation could not substitute for the President’s personal authority and visibility.
“Presidential absence on the global stage has consequences,” Atiku warned, pointing to the bilateral meetings, investment discussions, trade partnerships and development financing that typically happen around the UN gathering.
He said those consequences would eventually reach ordinary Nigerians through reduced investment, fewer jobs, pressure on the naira and higher living costs.
“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs,” he said.
Atiku was particularly critical of reports that Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jimoh Ibrahim, had secured Tinubu a seat “not too far” from where US President Donald Trump will be seated.
“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.
He also queried the reported spending of up to $9 million on American lobbyists by the Tinubu administration, asking why Nigeria would spend millions lobbying Washington while its President repeatedly stayed away from New York.
“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money?” Atiku asked.
The former vice president then turned to Tinubu’s legal history in the United States, citing forfeiture proceedings in Case No. 93 C 4483 before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Atiku said, citing the US government’s complaint and a supporting affidavit, that the case involved funds held in accounts in Tinubu’s name and those of associated companies, which the documents alleged were connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering. He said the proceedings eventually resulted in the forfeiture of about $460,000 to the US government.
“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States,” Atiku said, noting that the Presidency had announced no such restriction.
He, however, questioned whether the President’s repeated absence had anything to do with the American proceedings.
“Nigerians are therefore entitled to ask whether Tinubu’s three consecutive UNGA absences have anything to do with this documented American history,” he said.
Atiku also contrasted Nigeria’s military projection abroad with the President’s absence from the UN platform, citing the deployment of Nigerian troops and fighter jets to Benin Republic following the December 2025 attempted coup while insecurity persisted at home.
“Nigeria could project military power across its border, yet its President could not project Nigeria’s voice from its seat at the United Nations,” he said.
He demanded that the Presidency state whether Tinubu was free to travel to the United States and disclose the real reason for his continued absence.
“Nigeria is bigger than Bola. Our diplomatic influence, economic interests and international reputation must not be subordinated to Tinubu’s American baggage,” Atiku said.
Discussion about this post