Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Tinubu over his third consecutive absence from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), questioning whether the President’s past legal history in the United States has affected Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement.
The Presidency announced on Sunday that Vice President Kashim Shettima would represent Tinubu and lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st Session of UNGA in New York.
Atiku, through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, noted that Tinubu was also absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024 and the 80th session in 2025, with Shettima representing Nigeria on both occasions.
He said the repeated delegation could no longer simply be regarded as routine.
Atiku questions diplomatic impact
Atiku said UNGA provides world leaders with an opportunity to defend national interests, negotiate partnerships and engage other countries on trade, security and development.
While acknowledging Shettima’s capacity to represent Nigeria, he argued that repeated presidential absence could limit opportunities for direct bilateral engagements with other heads of government, investors and international institutions.
According to Atiku, such engagements can help attract investment, secure development financing and strengthen Nigeria’s international influence.
He said any reduction in investment opportunities could eventually affect ordinary Nigerians through fewer businesses and jobs.
Atiku 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 Tinubu’s US legal history
The former vice president also questioned reports that the Tinubu administration had spent up to $9 million on American lobbyists.
He asked why Nigeria would spend millions of dollars on lobbying in the United States while the President repeatedly stayed away from the UN gathering in New York.
Atiku subsequently raised Tinubu’s past legal history in the United States, referring to forfeiture proceedings in Case No. 93 C 4483 before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Atiku said the proceedings involved funds held in accounts in Tinubu’s name and those of associated companies, which court documents, according to his statement, linked to allegations involving narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
He said the proceedings resulted in the forfeiture of about $460,000 to the US government.
Atiku stressed that he was not claiming that Tinubu is 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.
‘If there is no impediment, explain’
Atiku questioned whether Tinubu’s past US legal controversies had any connection with his repeated absence from UNGA.
He said Nigerians deserved an explanation if there was no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal reason preventing the President from attending.
“Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?” Atiku asked.
He also criticised what he described as a contrast between Tinubu’s domestic political posture and his absence from major international diplomatic engagements.
“If there is no impediment, the Presidency must explain this serial absenteeism. If an impediment exists, Nigerians have a right to know,” he said.
Atiku concluded by questioning why Tinubu did not attend despite the reported arrangement for him to sit near Trump.
“What exactly are you afraid of in America?” Atiku queried.
