Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned President Bola Tinubu’s decision to stay away from the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, asking the Presidency to explain what he described as the president’s repeated absence from the annual global diplomatic gathering.
Tinubu has delegated Vice President Kashim Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the UNGA, whose high-level General Debate is scheduled to begin on September 22. According to Atiku, the president was similarly represented by Shettima at the 79th and 80th sessions in 2024 and 2025.
In a statement released on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku argued that the UNGA presents national leaders with an important opportunity to engage directly with foreign governments, investors and international institutions.
“The United Nations General Assembly is one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings. It brings together the representatives of the UN’s 193 member states and provides a unique platform for presidents and prime ministers to defend their countries’ interests, negotiate partnerships and shape global decisions on trade, security and development,” Atiku said.
“Vice President Shettima may represent Nigeria capably, but representation by delegation cannot permanently substitute for the personal authority, visibility and responsibility of the President.”
Atiku said the President’s repeated absence should not become the norm, adding:
“Tinubu cannot continue to treat Nigeria’s seat at the world’s biggest diplomatic table as though it were an inconvenient appointment that can be endlessly outsourced.”
The former vice president also raised concerns about the possible economic consequences of the president’s absence, pointing to the investment and diplomatic opportunities that often arise on the sidelines of the UN gathering.
“When a President makes himself absent from that stage for three consecutive years, his country loses opportunities,” he said.
“Investment does not follow silence. International capital does not pursue a country whose leader repeatedly abandons the room in which consequential economic relationships are being built.”
Atiku subsequently drew attention to the reported engagement of Washington-based lobbying firm DCI Group by the Nigerian government in a deal valued at $9 million.
According to the account cited by Atiku, the arrangement involved Kaduna-based Aster Legal and DCI Group, with the stated objective of communicating Nigeria’s security efforts and sustaining US support for its counterterrorism campaign.
He questioned why the government would spend such an amount on advocacy in Washington while the President was not attending the UNGA in New York.
“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money? Why spend millions of dollars lobbying Washington while Tinubu repeatedly stays away from New York?” he asked.
“Why hire lobbyists to speak for Nigeria in America when the Nigerian President cannot summon the courage to appear at the world’s biggest diplomatic gathering on American soil?”
Atiku also referred to an earlier comment attributed to Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, that a place had been reserved for Tinubu near US President Donald Trump.
“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.
“If proximity to President Trump was considered such a diplomatic achievement, why did Tinubu abandon the opportunity and send his deputy?”
The former vice president then brought up Tinubu’s past legal controversy in the United States, referring to a 1993 forfeiture proceeding in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
“The complaint stated that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering,” Atiku said.
“A supporting sworn affidavit by an Internal Revenue Service criminal-investigation agent similarly stated that funds in accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were connected to drug-trafficking proceeds. The proceedings eventually resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the United States government.”
Atiku acknowledged that there had been no public announcement of any legal restriction preventing Tinubu from travelling to the United States. He nevertheless questioned whether issues surrounding the President’s past in the country could have played a role in the repeated decision to stay away from the UNGA.
“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States. The Presidency has announced no such restriction,” he said.
“But if no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment exists, why has Tinubu repeatedly avoided the UNGA since 2024?”
He further asked whether what he called “one man’s personal history” was affecting Nigeria’s diplomatic interests.
Atiku also criticised what he portrayed as a disconnect between the President’s domestic political posture and Nigeria’s international responsibilities, insisting that the country’s interests should remain separate from the personal circumstances of any individual office holder.
“Nigeria is bigger than Bola. Our diplomatic influence, economic interests and international reputation must not be subordinated to Tinubu’s American baggage,” he said.
“After committing up to $9 million to American lobbyists, Nigerians deserve more than silence, evasions and another empty presidential seat at the United Nations.”
The former vice president called on the Presidency to clarify whether Tinubu was free to travel to the United States and to state why the President would again be absent from the UNGA.
“If there is no impediment, the Presidency must explain this serial absenteeism. If an impediment exists, Nigerians have a right to know,” Atiku said.
He concluded by returning to the reported seating arrangement involving Trump and directly challenging the President to explain his decision.
“Mr Bola, your seat was reportedly secured near President Donald Trump. Why did you refuse to occupy it?
“What exactly are you afraid of in America?” he asked.
Post A Comment: