He said while Shettima could represent Nigeria, repeated delegation could not substitute for the President’s personal authority and visibility at a major international diplomatic gathering.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Tinubu over his third consecutive absence from the United Nations General Assembly, questioning whether issues surrounding the President’s history with United States authorities have affected Nigeria’s foreign relations.
His comments followed Sunday’s announcement by the Presidency that Tinubu had mandated Vice President Kashim Shettima to represent him and lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, United States.
In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), said Tinubu was absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024 and the 80th in 2025, with Shettima representing him on both occasions.
He said Shettima would again lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st session in 2026, arguing that the pattern could no longer be dismissed as routine delegation.
“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.
He said while Shettima could represent Nigeria, repeated delegation could not substitute for the President’s personal authority and visibility at a major international diplomatic gathering.
Atiku also argued that UNGA provided opportunities for leaders to hold bilateral meetings, pursue investment and trade partnerships, mobilise development financing and engage on issues affecting their countries.
He said repeated presidential absence could therefore affect Nigeria’s ability to maximise such opportunities, with possible economic implications for the country.
“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs,” Atiku said.
The former vice president also questioned reports that Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, had secured Tinubu a seat close to United States President Donald Trump at the General Assembly.
“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.
Atiku Raises Questions Over Tinubu’s US Legal History
He also questioned the reported spending of up to $9 million on American lobbyists by the Tinubu administration, asking why Nigeria would spend millions of dollars on lobbying efforts in the United States while the President repeatedly stayed away from the UN gathering in New York.
“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money?” Atiku asked.
Atiku subsequently raised questions about Tinubu’s past 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.
According to Atiku, the case involved funds held in accounts in Tinubu’s name and those of associated companies, which the court documents alleged were connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
He said the proceedings eventually resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the United States government.
Atiku said the history had prompted questions about whether it had any connection with Tinubu’s repeated absence from UNGA.
“Nigerians are therefore entitled to ask whether Tinubu’s three consecutive UNGA absences have anything to do with this documented American history,” he said.
However, Atiku said he was not claiming that Tinubu was legally barred from entering the United States.
“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States. The Presidency has announced no such restriction,” he said.
He added that if there was no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment to Tinubu’s attendance, the Presidency should explain the decision to stay away from the General Assembly.
Atiku also questioned whether the President’s past US legal controversies had affected Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement with Washington.
“Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?” he asked.
The former vice president further criticised what he described as a contrast between Tinubu’s domestic political posture and his absence from major international diplomatic engagements.
He argued that Nigeria should be more visible at major international forums and questioned the decision to send the Vice President to represent the country for a third consecutive year.
“If there is no impediment, the Presidency must explain this serial absenteeism. If an impediment exists, Nigerians have a right to know,” he said.
“Nigeria is bigger than Bola. Our diplomatic influence, economic interests and international reputation must not be subordinated to Tinubu’s American baggage.
“After committing up to $9 million to American lobbyists, Nigerians deserve more than silence, evasions and another empty presidential seat at the United Nations.
“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?” Atiku queried.
