A curious question is hanging over President Bola Tinubu’s absence from the United Nations General Assembly this year, and it has little to do with whether Nigeria will have somebody in New York. Nigeria will. Vice President Kashim Shettima will lead the delegation, deliver Nigeria’s national statement and represent the President at the 81st session. The more difficult question is why Tinubu himself will not be there, particularly after Nigerians were told only two months ago that he would be.
In July, Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim, announced that Tinubu had confirmed his attendance at the 81st UNGA. Ibrahim even spoke about arrangements for the President’s participation and the possibility of him sitting near United States President Donald Trump during the General Debate. At that point, there was no suggestion that the President would be represented by his deputy. The expectation was that Tinubu would be in New York.
Then came the change.
On September 20, the Presidency announced that Shettima would instead lead Nigeria’s delegation. The announcement ended weeks of uncertainty over whether Tinubu would make the trip. By then, however, the President was already in Europe on a three-week leave that had begun on August 30. The State House had announced that Tinubu was travelling to Europe for his annual vacation and working holiday, beginning in London, and would return to Nigeria afterwards.
The timing deserves attention because the UN General Assembly did not suddenly appear on the calendar. The high-level week of the 81st session runs from September 22 to 28, with heads of state and government and other senior representatives gathering at the UN headquarters in New York for the General Debate and other high-level meetings.
So while the United Nations was preparing to bring world leaders together in New York, President Tinubu chose to spend the period on a three-week working vacation in Europe. That choice, more than the fact that Vice President Shettima is capable of representing Nigeria, is what Nigerians should be examining.
There is nothing inherently controversial about a President taking annual leave. That is not where the argument lies. The issue is the priority reflected in the timing and the unexplained change of plan. When a President knows that one of the biggest recurring diplomatic gatherings on the international calendar is approaching, confirms that he will attend, and then leaves the country for an extended working vacation before ultimately deciding not to go, the public is entitled to ask what changed.
And there is an important history behind this year’s decision.
Tinubu personally attended the 78th General Assembly in September 2023 and delivered Nigeria’s national statement himself. That was his first address to the UN since becoming President. In 2024, however, Shettima represented him at the 79th General Assembly. The same arrangement was repeated in 2025, when Shettima delivered the national statement on Tinubu’s behalf at the 80th session. He will now do so again in 2026.
This means that after personally attending UNGA in his first year in office, Tinubu has now been absent from the General Debate for three consecutive years.
That is no longer an isolated scheduling decision. It is a pattern of presidential choice.
The Presidency and Nigeria’s UN envoy have understandably emphasised that Nigeria will still be properly represented. Ambassador Ibrahim has said that more than 60 per cent of speakers at this year’s General Assembly are being represented by vice presidents or foreign ministers and that Nigeria will retain its designated position in the Assembly.
But Nigeria’s seat is not the issue.
Neither is Shettima’s ability to speak.
The real issue is the value the President himself places on being there.
A presidential appearance at UNGA is not simply about standing behind a lectern for a few minutes and reading a prepared statement. The General Assembly’s high-level week brings heads of government, international institutions and other influential actors into the same diplomatic environment. The formal speeches are only one part of what takes place. Meetings on the margins, bilateral conversations, investment discussions and direct contact with other leaders are part of the reason governments send their highest-ranking officials to New York.
Nigeria has interests to pursue there.
The country wants greater international investment. It wants stronger economic partnerships. It wants reforms in the global financial system. It has repeatedly pressed for a permanent African representation on the UN Security Council. In 2025, the national statement delivered by Shettima on Tinubu’s behalf called for a permanent African seat on the Security Council, urgent action on sovereign debt relief and better access to trade and financing, among other priorities.
These are not matters that suddenly become unimportant because the Vice President can deliver the President’s speech.
Indeed, the administration’s own emphasis on international economic diplomacy makes the President’s repeated absence more worthy of scrutiny. If Nigeria is asking the world for investment, financial support, institutional reform and a larger voice in global affairs, there is a reasonable case for asking why the President has chosen not to personally participate in the gathering where so many of those conversations take place.
There is an even sharper question this year because Tinubu’s European trip has not been a period of complete disengagement from international affairs.
During his working vacation in France, the State House announced that he met Vincent Bolloré over expanded investment in Nigeria’s creative and digital economy. On the same day, French President Emmanuel Macron received Tinubu for a private dinner.
Those engagements may be useful to Nigeria. They may produce investment or diplomatic benefits. There is no basis for suggesting otherwise simply because they took place during the President’s leave.
But their existence makes the timing of the UNGA absence harder to ignore.
If the President is available during his working vacation for discussions with international investors and a private dinner with a foreign head of state, Nigerians can reasonably ask why his personal attendance at the United Nations was not considered important enough to accommodate. Was the decision to remain in Europe made before or after the July commitment to attend UNGA? What changed? Was there a scheduling conflict? Did the President receive advice that his presence was more valuable elsewhere? Or did the administration simply reconsider the importance of his personal attendance?
There may be a straightforward answer. The problem is that the public has not been given one.
Instead, the response has largely been that Nigeria will be adequately represented.
That is true as far as it goes, but it does not answer why the President who was expected to attend will not attend.
There is a temptation in Nigerian political discourse to turn this into an argument about whether the Vice President is good enough to represent the country. That is a distraction. Shettima has represented Nigeria at UNGA before, and there is no reason to suggest that he cannot perform the assignment. The point is not to diminish the Vice President. It is to examine the President’s decision.
Presidential delegation is normal. Presidential absence is sometimes necessary. But delegation also reveals something about what a President considers important enough to handle personally.
That is why the difference between 2023 and 2024–2026 matters.
In 2023, Tinubu considered his personal presence at UNGA sufficiently important to travel to New York and address the world himself. In the three years that followed, he has repeatedly decided otherwise. The government has not explained what fundamentally changed in the President’s assessment of the value of being there.
And this year, the matter is further complicated by the fact that the President’s attendance was publicly announced before it was abandoned.
That is not a small detail.
A government can change a presidential itinerary. Circumstances change. Priorities change. Security considerations, diplomatic schedules and domestic demands can all alter a President’s plans. But when an official announcement says the President will attend, and another official announcement weeks later says his Vice President will go instead, the most basic expectation of accountability is an explanation of what happened between the two announcements.
Nigerians should not have to fill that gap with rumours.
There has been speculation about why Tinubu has not travelled to the United States, including claims about possible legal or movement restrictions. Those claims do not need to become part of this argument. They are unnecessary, and unless established by credible evidence, they would only distract from the much stronger issue already contained in the official record.
The facts are enough.
Tinubu attended UNGA in 2023. Shettima represented him in 2024 and 2025. Tinubu’s attendance at the 81st session was publicly confirmed in July. On August 30, Tinubu left Nigeria for a three-week European vacation and working holiday. On September 20, the Presidency announced that Shettima would represent him at UNGA.
That sequence is difficult to dismiss as a trivial matter of delegation.
It raises a question about presidential priorities at a time when Nigeria is trying to deepen its international relationships and increase its influence in global institutions.
There is also a broader principle involved. Presidents do not demonstrate the importance of an issue merely by assigning someone to speak about it. Their choice of where to appear personally is itself a political and diplomatic statement. A President cannot attend every engagement, but when he repeatedly stays away from a particular forum, Nigerians are entitled to ask what that pattern means.
UNGA is not an obscure conference that can be attended whenever convenient. The United Nations describes the General Debate as the annual meeting at which heads of state and government gather to present their positions and priorities on global challenges. Nearly 130 heads of state and government are expected to attend this year’s high-level week in person.
Nigeria is one of the world’s largest countries by population, a major African economy and a country that has long sought a stronger voice in international affairs. Its President does not have to attend every meeting in which Nigeria participates. But when he decides not to attend the annual gathering where the world’s political leadership assembles, three years in succession, that decision deserves more than the assurance that somebody else will read the speech.
The more revealing issue may therefore not be what Shettima will say in New York. It is what Tinubu’s absence says about the value he places on saying it himself.
Perhaps there is a compelling reason for the President’s decision. If there is, the Presidency should explain it. If the administration believes that presidential attendance at UNGA has little additional diplomatic value beyond what the Vice President can provide, it should say that plainly. If other priorities required Tinubu’s presence elsewhere, Nigerians deserve to know what those priorities were.
What should not be allowed to happen is for a straightforward question about a presidential decision to disappear behind the convenient assertion that Nigeria is represented.
Nigeria is represented. That was never in doubt.
What is in question is why, after attending UNGA in 2023 and after publicly confirming that he would attend again this year, President Tinubu chose to remain in Europe on a three-week working vacation while Vice President Shettima went to New York in his place.
That is a question about the President, not the Vice President; about priorities, not protocol; and about the value this administration places on Nigeria’s direct presidential presence in the world.
It deserves an answer from the person who made the choice.
Stephanie Shaakaa shaakaastephanie02@gmail.com
08034861434
