Editorial: 28 Days Without Tinubu: Who Is in Charge?

Twenty-eight days is a long time in the life of a nation. It is long enough to raise a simple but profound question: who is exercising the powers of the Nigerian presidency?

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may be abroad, but Nigeria is not on autopilot. Government does not stop because the President travels. Yet neither should constitutional accountability be suspended because the President is communicating from another country.

That is why the continuing absence of the President has moved beyond the realm of travel plans and entered the territory of constitutional responsibility.

The question is not whether President Tinubu remains President of Nigeria. He does.The question is more precise—and more important: Under what constitutional arrangement are the functions of the President being exercised during this prolonged absence? That question deserves an answer.

The Constitution is clear about uncertainty

Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provides a mechanism for dealing with a President who proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office.

The provision contemplates a written declaration by the President to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Upon that declaration, the Vice President performs the functions of President as Acting President.

The Constitution also addresses the situation in which the President fails to transmit such a declaration within 21 days. In that circumstance, the National Assembly has a constitutionally prescribed role.

This provision was not inserted into the Constitution for decoration.It exists because Nigeria has experienced the dangers of uncertainty over presidential authority.

The country therefore cannot afford a situation in which the public is left guessing about who is constitutionally exercising executive power.

Being abroad is not the same as being absent from office.

To be fair, physical presence in Abuja is not a constitutional requirement for every presidential action.

A President can travel. A President can work from abroad. A President can communicate with ministers, security chiefs and government officials electronically. Modern technology makes geographical distance far less significant to the routine administration of government.

But that is not the whole argument. The ability to communicate with Abuja does not automatically answer the constitutional question concerning the formal exercise of presidential functions.

The Constitution deals not merely with where the President happens to be sitting, but with circumstances in which the President is away on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge the functions of the office.

That distinction deserves careful attention.

If the Presidency's position is that President Tinubu has remained fully capable of exercising his constitutional functions from abroad, then it should explain the legal basis for that position. If the relevant constitutional declaration was made, Nigerians should be told. If it was transmitted to the appropriate constitutional officers, that fact should be clear. If the administration believes that no declaration was required, it should explain why. There is no reason for constitutional clarity to become a political mystery.

Twenty-one days cannot become an invisible number

The most troubling aspect of the controversy is the emergence of the 21-day threshold in public debate.

Section 145 does not say that the President automatically ceases to be President after 21 days.

Nor does it say that the Vice President automatically becomes President merely because the President remains abroad beyond that period.The constitutional provision is more specific.

Where the President fails to transmit the required declaration, the National Assembly has a mechanism through which it may mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President.

That distinction is crucial. The debate should therefore not be reduced to the simplistic claim that “21 days means Tinubu is no longer President.” That would be an inaccurate reading of the constitutional provision.

But the opposite position is equally troubling if it amounts to saying that the 21-day provision has no practical significance whatsoever.

It does. The Constitution deliberately established a procedure for circumstances in which presidential functions may need to be performed by the Vice President. That procedure deserves to be respected.

Who is speaking for the presidency?

The appearance of other officials acting on behalf of the President raises another question.

A government can continue functioning even when the President is abroad. Ministers can perform their statutory responsibilities. The Secretary to the Government of the Federation can represent the President at official engagements. Presidential aides can communicate directives.

But representation is not succession. A minister representing the President at an event does not become President.

A presidential aide carrying out instructions does not acquire the constitutional powers of the President.

And the Secretary to the Government of the Federation does not become Acting President merely because he is performing duties on behalf of the President.

This distinction must remain clear.

The Nigerian state cannot afford a situation in which administrative delegation becomes confused with constitutional transfer of presidential authority.

The Vice President question

The situation becomes even more sensitive when both the President and Vice President are outside the country at the same time.

Vice President Kashim Shettima has official responsibilities and is entitled to travel on behalf of Nigeria. There is nothing inherently improper about such travel.

But when the President is abroad and the Vice President is also abroad, Nigerians are entitled to know precisely how the constitutional chain of command operates.

This is particularly important in a country facing serious security, economic and social challenges.

Nigeria does not need a constitutional vacuum.

Nor does it need the perception of one.

Perception matters in governance because confidence in government depends not only on what officials know internally but also on what citizens can reasonably establish from the public record.

The National Assembly cannot look away

This is where the National Assembly must rise above partisan politics.

Section 145 gives the legislature a role in circumstances where the President has not transmitted the relevant declaration within the prescribed period.

That role cannot be treated as optional political theatre. The National Assembly should establish the facts. Did the President transmit a written declaration? Was it received by the appropriate officers? When was it received? What constitutional consequences followed? If the relevant constitutional conditions have not arisen, lawmakers should explain why.

If they have arisen, the National Assembly should explain what action the Constitution requires. Silence is not constitutional interpretation. Neither is political loyalty.

The legislature exists partly to ensure that executive power remains subject to constitutional limits.

That responsibility applies whether the President is popular or unpopular, whether the governing party is strong or weak, and whether the controversy is politically convenient or inconvenient.

Nigeria has been here before

Nigeria's political history should make us particularly cautious.

The prolonged absence of President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua exposed dangerous weaknesses in the country's handling of presidential succession and temporary transfer of authority.

The resulting controversy shook the constitutional order and ultimately contributed to reforms designed to provide greater clarity.

The lesson should have been permanently learned:

A modern democracy cannot leave the exercise of presidential power to informal arrangements and political assumptions.

Constitutions are designed for difficult moments.

They are not merely documents for peaceful periods when everyone agrees about who is in charge.

When uncertainty arises, the constitutional procedure becomes more important, not less.

This is not about Tinubu alone

This debate should not be personalised.

It is tempting to turn the entire issue into a referendum on President Tinubu's administration. That would miss the larger point.

The same constitutional question could arise under a future President.

Those defending the Presidency today may find themselves demanding constitutional transparency tomorrow.

Those criticising the President today may someday occupy the position of defending executive authority.

The Constitution must therefore be bigger than every political party and every individual who occupies Aso Rock.

The question should always be:

What does the Constitution require?Not:Whose side are you on?

Nigerians deserve certainty

There is nothing unreasonable about asking the Presidency to clarify the constitutional position. Indeed, transparency would be the easiest way to end the controversy. If all constitutional requirements have been satisfied, say so. If a declaration was transmitted, confirm it. If the administration's legal position is that the President can continue exercising his functions from abroad without invoking Section 145, explain that position clearly.

If there is disagreement over the interpretation of the Constitution, the appropriate institutions should resolve it.

What Nigeria does not need is a continuing exchange of political statements while a constitutional question hangs in the air.

Government must be lawful, not merely operational. A functioning government is not necessarily the same thing as a constitutionally transparent government.

The real question

After 28 days, the question should no longer be reduced to the President's location. The more important question is the location of constitutional authority. Where is it? Who is exercising it? Under what provision?

And has the constitutional procedure been followed? These are not opposition questions. They are not government questions.They are Nigerian questions. President Tinubu is entitled to travel. He is entitled to conduct official business abroad. He is entitled to remain President while abroad.

But Nigerians are equally entitled to know how the functions of that office are being exercised during an extended absence.

That is the essence of constitutional democracy. The President cannot be expected to be physically present in Abuja every day.

But the Constitution must always be present. And when questions arise about the exercise of the highest executive authority in the land, Nigerians deserve more than reassurance.

They deserve clarity.Twenty-eight days is long enough. The President may be abroad. The government may still be functioning. But the Constitution must answer the question: who is in charge?