President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima’s concurrent absence, narrowly averted by a canceled trip, cast a shadow over Nigeria’s governance. Tinubu’s prolonged absence, following his Saudi trip for the World Economic Forum, coupled with Shettima’s scheduled departure to the US, raised concerns.

Tinubu’s diplomatic engagements in the Netherlands heightened speculation about his whereabouts, while Shettima’s planned representation at the US-Africa Business Summit underscored the significance of his role. Yet, both leaders’ absence triggered criticism from rights activist Deji Adeyanju, who lambasted the government’s lack of transparency and accountability.

Adeyanju’s scathing remarks echoed concerns about Nigeria’s leadership vacuum. The National Assembly’s perceived impotence in holding the executive accountable further fueled apprehensions. Constitutional lawyer Madubuachi Idam warned of potential constitutional breaches if both the president and vice president were absent simultaneously, suggesting impeachment as a remedy.

Idam’s legal analysis underscored the gravity of the situation, emphasizing the constitutional imperative for power transmission in the absence of the president. The absence of such provisions raised questions about the government’s adherence to constitutional norms and principles.

Former campaign spokesman Daniel Bwala offered a contrasting perspective, asserting that Tinubu could effectively govern remotely, citing constitutional provisions. Bwala’s assertion failed to address the broader concerns regarding institutional integrity and accountability.

the President should be accountable and transparent to the people of Nigeria to avoid speculations.