Averted from occurring due to a sudden alteration in plans, the simultaneous absence of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima from the country’s confines would have resulted in a vacancy at the Aso Rock seat of power.
Concerns had been circulating about Tinubu’s whereabouts for a week following his official trip to Saudi Arabia for the special World Economic Forum (WEF) gathering. Meanwhile, Shettima was slated to depart for the United States of America, raising apprehensions about both leaders being away at the same time.
Tinubu’s international engagements included a visit to the Netherlands at the invitation of Prime Minister Mark Rutte, where he engaged in substantive discussions with Dutch dignitaries. While Nigerians grappled with Tinubu’s absence, Shettima was set to attend the 2024 US-Africa Business Summit in Dallas but canceled abruptly due to aircraft issues.
The situation sparked reactions from various quarters, with activists and legal experts criticizing the leadership vacuum. Deji Adeyanju, a prominent rights activist, lambasted the absence of both leaders, condemning what he deemed as disregard for accountability and constitutional responsibility. He accused Tinubu and Shettima of neglecting their duties and called for their impeachment.
Madubuachi Idam, another legal expert, echoed concerns about the constitutional implications of both leaders’ absence. He stressed the need for adherence to constitutional protocols regarding the transfer of power in such scenarios, highlighting the potential grounds for impeachment.
However, Daniel Bwala, a former spokesperson for the defunct Atiku-Okowa Presidential Campaign Organization, offered a contrasting perspective. He asserted that Tinubu retains governance authority regardless of his location, citing constitutional provisions that allow the president to discharge duties from anywhere.
As debates and speculations continue regarding the implications of Tinubu and Shettima’s absence, the discourse underscores the intricate interplay between constitutional mandates and practical governance exigencies.
