Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over his decision to stay away from the United Nations General Assembly for the third consecutive year.
Atiku’s criticism followed the Presidency’s announcement that Vice President Kashim Shettima would represent Tinubu and lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st Session of the UNGA in New York. The 2026 General Debate is scheduled for September 22 to 28.
In a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Tinubu had been absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and would again not attend the 81st session in 2026. 
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, said the repeated delegation of the Vice President could no longer be regarded as routine diplomatic representation.
He argued that the UNGA provides heads of government with an important platform to advance their countries’ interests, hold bilateral meetings, attract investments, pursue trade opportunities and engage development partners.
According to him, while Shettima could effectively represent Nigeria, the Vice President’s participation could not completely substitute for the President’s personal presence and visibility at a major international diplomatic gathering.
Atiku further argued that Nigeria could lose opportunities for investment and development financing when the President is absent from such high-level engagements.
“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs,” he said.
The former vice president also questioned reports that Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, had secured a seat for Tinubu close to United States President Donald Trump during the General Assembly.
“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.
He also questioned reports that the Tinubu administration had spent up to $9 million on American lobbyists, asking why Nigeria would commit such funds to 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.
Questions over Tinubu’s US legal history
Atiku subsequently raised questions about Tinubu’s past legal proceedings in the United States, citing Case No. 93 C 4483 before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
He referred to the forfeiture proceedings involving funds held in accounts in Tinubu’s name and those of associated companies, alleging that US court documents linked the funds to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
Atiku said the proceedings ultimately resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the US government.
However, he stressed that he was not claiming 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,” Atiku said.
He nevertheless questioned whether Tinubu’s past legal history in the US had any connection with his repeated absence from the 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.
Atiku called on the Presidency to explain the reason for Tinubu’s absence if there was no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment preventing him from attending.
“Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?” he asked.
He also questioned whether the President’s absence could affect Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement with the United States and other countries.
Atiku concluded by demanding greater transparency from the Presidency over the decision to send Shettima to the UNGA for a third consecu
