No ‘Working Vacation’ In Constitution – ADC Knocks Tinubu Over Extended Absence

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has challenged the constitutional basis of President Bola Tinubu’s continued absence from Nigeria.

According to the party, the Constitution does not recognise a “working vacation” as an alternative to the procedure for transferring presidential powers.

The party also questioned the simultaneous absence of Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima, asking who is currently exercising the constitutional powers of the President.

The ADC made its position known in a statement on Tuesday by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, following Tinubu’s extended stay in Europe.

Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency initially announced as a three-week annual vacation. The State House said on September 21 that the President had extended the working vacation by a few days and would return to Nigeria at the weekend.

According to the ADC, the extension has raised questions about the application of Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, particularly the procedure to be followed when the President proceeds on vacation or is unable to perform the functions of his office.

“President Tinubu left Nigeria on 30 August and has now been away for more than 21 days. We therefore demand to know whether the required declaration was transmitted by the President. If he did not, we would like to know why the National Assembly has ignored Section 145 of the Constitution,” the party said.

The opposition party rejected the description of Tinubu’s absence as a “working vacation”, arguing that the label does not replace the constitutional procedure governing presidential authority.

“There is no constitutional category known as a ‘working vacation’. Presidential authority cannot be transferred by convenience, protocol or press statement. Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, not a private enterprise to be managed remotely from a holiday destination,” the ADC said.

The party also faulted the Presidency’s explanation that Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, would continue to represent Tinubu at official engagements while the President and Vice-President are outside the country.

The Presidency has said Tinubu has remained in contact with officials at home and continued directing the affairs of government while abroad. It also said Akume would continue representing the President at events after Shettima travelled to New York to represent Nigeria at the 81st United Nations General Assembly.

But the ADC argued that attending official functions on behalf of the President does not amount to exercising presidential powers.

“Representing the President at events and ceremonies does not confer constitutional powers. The Secretary to the Government of the Federation is a mere appointee of the President. He may attend events or deliver speeches on the President’s behalf, but he cannot exercise the constitutional powers of the President or Acting President,” the party said.

“Representation is not governance. Attendance at official functions is not presidential authority. Nigeria cannot be governed through ceremonial proxies, telephone calls and press statements issued from foreign capitals.”

The party further questioned the constitutional implications of the President and Vice-President being outside Nigeria at the same time.

Shettima left Abuja on September 20 for New York, where he is representing Nigeria at the ongoing UN General Assembly. The Presidency said he would deliver Nigeria’s national statement at the gathering.

The ADC said the simultaneous absence of the two highest-ranking officials in the executive branch was particularly concerning given the security and economic challenges facing the country.

It also drew attention to the difference between Tinubu’s location in Paris and French President Emmanuel Macron’s presence in New York for the UN General Assembly.

“The irony would be amusing if it were not a national disgrace. At a time when world leaders are advancing their countries’ interests at the United Nations General Assembly, Nigeria’s President is holed up in the French capital while his host has left to pursue his own country’s national interest,” the party said.

“President Tinubu cannot be vacationing in Paris while President Macron is in New York representing France and expect Nigerians to accept that it is okay for their President to continue to hang around in a country after the host has left to attend to more important things. This is not merely poor optics. It is a national embarrassment.”

The development follows concerns already raised by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, the ADC’s presidential candidate, who on Monday questioned whether the constitutional procedure for the transfer of presidential authority had been followed.

Atiku said Tinubu’s three-week vacation had elapsed without Nigerians being shown a declaration transferring presidential functions to Shettima. He also asked the National Assembly to clarify its position if no such declaration had been transmitted.

The ADC’s latest statement similarly demanded clarification from both the Presidency and the National Assembly.

The party said the Presidency should state whether Tinubu transmitted the required declaration before or during his absence and whether the relevant constitutional procedure had been activated.

“Who presently exercises the constitutional powers of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and under what provision of the Constitution?” the party asked.

The controversy comes as the Presidency maintains that Tinubu remains in charge of government despite his absence from Nigeria. In announcing the extension of his stay, the State House cited his continued involvement in national affairs, including his directive for an independent investigation into the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in Minna, Niger State.

The ADC, however, insisted that continuing to issue directives from abroad does not answer the constitutional question it has raised.

The party said, “The claim that the President has continued to direct national affairs from abroad only compounds the absurdity,” arguing that the President’s continued involvement in government does not remove what it described as his obligations under Section 145.