Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has called on President Bola Tinubu to explain his third consecutive absence from the United Nations General Assembly, questioning whether his history with U.S. law enforcement was affecting Nigeria’s foreign relations.
In a statement issued Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku noted that Tinubu missed the 79th UNGA session in 2024, the 80th in 2025, and now the 81st in 2026, each time delegating Vice President Kashim Shettima to attend in his place.
He argued that three straight absences could no longer be seen as coincidental, calling it a pattern that deserves a clear explanation.
Atiku described the UN General Assembly as one of the world’s most significant diplomatic gatherings, where leaders negotiate partnerships, attract investment, and shape global decisions.
He said that while Shettima may represent Nigeria competently, delegated representation cannot replace the President’s own presence and authority on the world stage.
He argued that Nigeria pays a real cost for the President’s absence, saying investors are less likely to engage with a country whose leader is not present to make the case for it.
He linked this directly to reduced capital inflows, pressure on the naira, and rising costs for imports and everyday goods — pressures he said Nigerians are already feeling amid the current cost-of-living crisis.
Atiku also questioned the circumstances surrounding a seat reportedly reserved for Tinubu near U.S. President Donald Trump, which he said the President never used.
He contrasted this with the Nigerian government’s reported commitment of up to $9 million to American lobbyists, asking what the spending had achieved if Tinubu continues to avoid U.S.-based diplomatic events.
Referencing a 1993 U.S. federal forfeiture case, Case No. 93 C 4483, Atiku pointed to court records showing that around $460,000 tied to accounts linked to Tinubu was forfeited to the U.S. government following allegations connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
He said this history raises legitimate questions about the reasons behind Tinubu’s continued absence from U.S.-hosted global events, while clarifying that he was not claiming Tinubu faces any legal restriction on entering the country.
Atiku further criticized what he described as a contradiction between the administration’s assertive posture at home — including the deployment of Nigerian troops to Benin Republic after an attempted coup in December 2025 — and its reluctance to engage on the international stage.
He called on the presidency to state clearly whether Tinubu is free to travel to the United States and to explain the reasoning behind his repeated absence from the UN General Assembly, arguing that Nigerians deserve transparency rather than silence on the matter.
