Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned President Bola Tinubu’s decision to stay away from the 81st United Nations General Assembly, despite an earlier arrangement to secure a seat for him close to United States President Donald Trump.
Atiku’s criticism followed the disclosure by Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, that a strategically positioned seat had been secured for Tinubu, prompting the former vice president to question why the President would not attend the gathering himself if such diplomatic positioning was considered important.
According to Atiku, Tinubu’s absence has now become a recurring pattern, having also stayed away from the 79th UNGA in 2024 and the 80th in 2025, when Vice President Kashim Shettima represented Nigeria.
In a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku argued that repeated presidential absence from the global diplomatic gathering could not simply be treated as routine delegation.
He said the UNGA provides heads of government with an opportunity to engage directly with world leaders, investors and international institutions on issues ranging from security and trade to development and economic cooperation.
While acknowledging that Shettima could represent Nigeria, Atiku maintained that presidential delegation could not permanently substitute for the personal visibility and authority of the President at such a major international forum.
His sharpest criticism, however, centred on the reported effort to position Tinubu close to Trump.
“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said, questioning why Nigeria would go to the trouble of securing what was presented as a strategically significant position when Tinubu ultimately would not occupy it.
He further questioned the decision to spend what he described as up to $9 million on American lobbyists to improve Nigeria’s standing in Washington while the President repeatedly stays away from a major diplomatic gathering taking place in the United States.
Atiku also raised questions about Tinubu’s past legal controversies in the United States, asking whether they had any bearing on the President’s repeated absence from the UNGA.
He specifically referenced the controversies surrounding Tinubu’s academic claims and the forfeiture of funds in a US case, while challenging the Presidency to explain whether any issue connected to the President’s history in the United States had influenced his decision not to attend.
Atiku said the economic implications of presidential absence should also be considered, arguing that UNGA engagements provide opportunities to pursue investment, trade partnerships and development financing.
“When a President makes himself absent from that stage for three consecutive years, his country loses opportunities,” he said, arguing that the consequences of missed diplomatic and economic engagements could ultimately affect Nigerians.
He also questioned whether it was consistent for an administration to commit substantial resources to lobbying Washington while the President remained absent from a major international gathering in New York.
The former vice president consequently demanded an explanation for what he described as Tinubu’s repeated withdrawal from the UNGA, asking whether the decision was based on diplomatic considerations, personal circumstances or issues arising from his previous history in the United States.
The controversy therefore centres less on Shettima’s ability to represent Nigeria and more on why Tinubu has repeatedly chosen not to personally occupy Nigeria’s place at the gathering, particularly in a year when, according to Atiku, arrangements had already been made to give him a strategically positioned seat.
