Former presidential aide and Arise Television anchor, Reuben Abati, has criticised former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and his camp over their condemnation of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s three-week working vacation in Europe.
Abati described some of the questions being raised by the Atiku camp as embarrassing and insufficiently researched, arguing that the President is constitutionally entitled to travel as long as his absence does not exceed the period requiring a formal transfer of power.
Abati: Tinubu Is Entitled to Travel
Speaking on Monday while analysing the controversy surrounding Tinubu’s trip, Abati said the President had not violated the Constitution by travelling outside Nigeria.
According to him, Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution provides for a formal transfer of power when a president is unable to discharge his functions due to absence or other circumstances.
Abati argued that the Tinubu administration appeared to have deliberately kept the President’s absence within the 21-day threshold.
He said:
“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has now gone on what they call a working vacation for three weeks, which he is entitled to.”
Abati maintained that Tinubu could travel wherever he wished, whether for a working vacation, state visit or another official engagement, provided the constitutional requirements were respected.
He therefore rejected suggestions that the President’s trip automatically created a constitutional leadership vacuum.
Atiku Had Criticised Tinubu’s Absence
The controversy followed a statement by Atiku Abubakar in which the ADC presidential candidate criticised Tinubu for leaving the country for a three-week vacation at a time Nigeria was facing serious economic and security challenges.
Atiku described the President’s absence as a “disturbing vacuum of political leadership”, arguing that the country required active presidential leadership amid widespread hardship.
But Abati dismissed the argument, saying the Atiku camp should have conducted more research before questioning the legality of the President’s trip.
He argued that criticism should focus on substantive issues rather than suggesting that Tinubu had no right to travel.
Abati Raises Question About Vice President
While defending Tinubu’s constitutional right to travel, however, Abati identified what he considered a more relevant issue surrounding the situation.
He noted that Vice President Kashim Shettima was reportedly outside Nigeria at the same time Tinubu was travelling to Europe.
According to Abati, while the President was travelling, the Vice President was in Angola.
He suggested that this was the issue the Atiku camp could have focused on rather than questioning whether Tinubu was allowed to travel.
Abati said:
“I think where the problem is, which is where the Atiku camp should have put their focus, is that as of the time the president was travelling yesterday, I’m not sure that the Vice President of Nigeria was in the country.”
“No Evidence Tinubu Has Handed Over”
Abati also pointed out that there was no indication that Tinubu had formally transferred presidential powers to Shettima.
He said this was consistent with his interpretation that the President had remained within the constitutional time limit.
According to Abati, the absence of a formal handover does not necessarily mean the President has violated the law if the constitutional conditions requiring one have not been triggered.
He therefore rejected the claim that Tinubu’s European trip amounted to an unconstitutional abandonment of presidential duties.
Political Debate Intensifies Ahead of 2027
The disagreement between Atiku and Abati adds another dimension to the growing political debate over Tinubu’s leadership as Nigeria moves towards the 2027 presidential election.
While Atiku has used the President’s absence to question the administration’s leadership and response to national challenges, Abati has argued that the focus should be on whether Tinubu complied with the constitutional requirements.
The controversy also raises a broader question: Should the President’s absence be judged primarily by the legality of his travel or by the political timing of his decision to leave the country?
For Abati, Tinubu has the constitutional right to travel. For Atiku, however, the bigger issue is whether the President should be away from Nigeria while citizens face economic hardship and insecurity.
