Akpabio defends Tinubu’s extended stay abroad

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has defended President Bola Tinubu’s extended stay outside Nigeria, saying the president remains in charge and is using his time abroad to do things he cannot do in Nigeria.

But that explanation has raised a bigger question than the issue Mr Akpabio was attempting to settle.

“What he (the president) cannot do here, he’s doing abroad,” Mr Akpabio said.

What exactly can President Tinubu do abroad that he cannot do in Nigeria?

Mr Akpabio spoke on Tuesday in Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State, while commissioning a road project as part of activities marking the state’s 29th anniversary. Governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom and other political leaders and government officials attended the event.

Mr Akpabio was responding to a recent post by the Akwa Ibom State Government on its official Facebook page describing him as the “Acting President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

He rejected the description, saying Mr Tinubu remains in office.

“Just to correct that impression. I am the Senate president and chairman of the National Assembly. I am not the acting president because the president is still in power,” he said.

“The president is still on working leave, so there is no vacancy in Aso Rock.”

The Presidency has described Mr Tinubu’s trip as a working leave and said he has continued to direct government affairs while abroad.

During the trip, Mr Tinubu travelled to London and later Paris, where he met French President Emmanuel Macron. The Presidency said the meeting focused on strengthening bilateral relations between Nigeria and France. He also met French businessman Vincent Bolloré over potential investments in Nigeria’s creative and digital economy.

These engagements show that the president has continued official activities while abroad. They, however, do not explain Mr Akpabio’s specific assertion that the president is doing abroad what he “cannot do” in Nigeria.

If the Senate president was referring to diplomatic engagements, what exactly prevents such engagements from being conducted in Nigeria or through other official channels? If he was referring to investment discussions, what activity requires the president’s physical presence abroad?

If Akpabio meant something else, what was it?

The question is significant because Mr Akpabio is not merely another politician defending the president. As Senate president and chairman of the National Assembly, his comments carry considerable political weight.

His intervention came amid public discussion over Mr Tinubu’s prolonged absence from Nigeria. Vice-President Kashim Shettima has also travelled abroad to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York, while the Presidency maintains that the government continues to function and that Mr Tinubu remains in charge.

Mr Akpabio’s clarification therefore settles the narrow question of whether he is acting president but leaves a broader issue unresolved: what justifies the president’s continued presence abroad, and what exactly does Mr Akpabio mean by saying there are things Mr Tinubu cannot do in Nigeria?

PREMIUM TIMES sought clarification from Mr Akpabio’s spokesperson, Eseme Eyiboh.

Mr Eyiboh did not respond to calls and a question sent to his WhatsApp account, seeking an explanation of what the Senate president meant by the statement.

For now, the Senate President’s attempt to correct one impression has created another question that demands an answer: What exactly is President Tinubu doing abroad that he cannot do in Nigeria?

READ ALSO: Tinubu extends vacation abroad, announces return

Meanwhile, some members of the House of Representatives operating under the banner of the Save Democracy Group (SDG), have called on the National Assembly to reconvene and determine whether Mr Shettima should assume the functions of president in the absence of President Bola Tinubu.

The group made the call in a statement on Wednesday and signed by its leaders, Awaji-Inombek Abiante (NDC, Rivers) and Abubakar Kusada (APC, Katsina).

It followed the expiration of the 21-day period provided under Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution within which the president should be on leave.