By Samuel Ugonna Benson, CEO & Lead Analyst | Bold Lite Agency
Lead Analyst’s Note: The simultaneous overseas presence of the President, Vice President, and Senate President is politically striking, but our role at the research desk is to look past the political noise. The core commercial concern here is transaction certainty. For enterprise boards entering large government-linked concessions, sovereign guarantees, or public-private partnerships, absolute clarity regarding who has lawful authority to approve and execute decisions on behalf of the state is mandatory. This brief uses the “Governance Continuity Index” to audit the real-world operational friction created when cross-border policy management occurs without a centralized domestic anchor. — S.U.B.
A government can continue functioning while a constitutional question remains unanswered. That is the unusual position Nigeria now occupies. President Bola Tinubu left the country on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a three-week working vacation. He travelled first to London and subsequently to Paris. On September 21, the State House announced that he had extended the trip by a few days and would return at the weekend.
At almost the same time, Vice President Kashim Shettima was in New York leading Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly. Senate President Godswill Akpabio was also reported to be outside Nigeria, having travelled to Italy. The coincidence is politically striking. Its constitutional meaning, however, requires greater precision.
The 21-Day Clock Changed the Debate
Section 145 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution addresses what happens when the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office. The provision says the President shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Until the President transmits a declaration that he is ready to resume, the Vice President performs the functions of President as Acting President. Section 145(2) separately provides a mechanism involving the National Assembly where the required declaration is not transmitted within 21 days.
That wording has now become the centre of the dispute. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded that the Presidency disclose whether Tinubu transmitted the relevant declaration before leaving Nigeria. He has also questioned why the National Assembly has not acted if no declaration was transmitted within the period contemplated by Section 145(2). But there is an important complication.
A Premium Times examination of the issue found that officials contacted at the Presidency and National Assembly could not independently confirm whether the declaration had been transmitted. The same report cited competing interpretations from constitutional lawyers over whether Section 145(2) should be understood as a 21-day threshold for National Assembly intervention or as something that does not remove the immediate obligation contained in Section 145(1). That disagreement matters. It means the responsible conclusion is not that Nigeria has already entered a constitutional vacuum. The defensible conclusion is that the public record has not clearly settled the status of the Section 145 declaration.
Why Akpabio Matters
Akpabio’s presence in this story is important precisely because his constitutional role is often misunderstood. Section 145 refers directly to the President of the Senate because the President’s written declaration is transmitted to him and the Speaker of the House. That makes Akpabio institutionally relevant to the question of whether such a communication was received.
But it does not make him an automatic substitute for Tinubu. Section 146 governs presidential succession where the office of President becomes vacant through circumstances such as death, resignation, removal or permanent incapacity. It places the Vice President in the succession framework and only brings the President of the Senate into the presidential succession sequence where both the offices of President and Vice President are vacant.
Foreign travel is not the same thing as a vacancy. Akpabio’s reported presence in Italy therefore does not mean he should exercise presidential powers merely because Tinubu and Shettima are abroad. The constitutional question concerning temporary absence remains anchored in Section 145. His simultaneous absence, however, adds an institutional dimension to the controversy because the Senate President is one of the constitutional officers directly relevant to the Section 145 notification process. That is the distinction the public debate needs.
Government Has Continued to Operate
There is also no evidence that Nigeria’s administrative machinery has stopped functioning. The Presidency says Tinubu has remained in contact with officials at home and continued directing government affairs while abroad. It cited, among other actions, his order for an independent investigation into the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in NSCDC custody in Minna. The State House also says Shettima has been delegated to represent Tinubu at official functions and that, with the Vice President now in New York, Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume will continue representing the President at events in Nigeria.
This establishes an important fact: administrative activity has continued. It does not, by itself, answer whether the formal constitutional procedure contemplated by Section 145 has been activated. Those are two different questions.
The Economic Issue Is Smaller Than the Political Noise
The temptation is to convert the leadership configuration immediately into a sovereign-risk story. The evidence does not justify that leap. There is no established evidence that Nigeria’s Eurobond yields or foreign investment flows have moved because Tinubu, Shettima and Akpabio are simultaneously abroad. The more credible economic concern is transaction certainty.
Businesses entering large government-linked arrangements—concessions, procurement contracts, infrastructure agreements, sovereign guarantees or public-private partnerships—need to establish who has lawful authority to approve and execute decisions on behalf of the state. If that authority becomes publicly contested, counterparties may demand additional legal verification. That does not automatically stop capital. It can, however, add friction to transactions where government authority is part of the commercial risk assessment.
Documentation Is Now More Important Than Rhetoric
The controversy has produced two competing narratives. The Presidency says Tinubu remains in charge and has continued directing government affairs from abroad. Atiku argues that the constitutional procedure must be demonstrated through a formal declaration and, if necessary, National Assembly action.
The cleanest way through the dispute is documentary rather than political. If the Section 145 declaration exists, the relevant institutions can establish that fact. If it does not, the constitutional implications of the 21-day provision deserve formal clarification by the institutions empowered under the Constitution. That would be more valuable than another round of competing political statements.
Nigeria’s Real Governance Signal
The simultaneous overseas presence of Tinubu, Shettima and Akpabio is unusual, but unusual is not synonymous with unconstitutional. Tinubu remains President. Shettima’s UN assignment does not make him President by itself. Akpabio’s presence outside Nigeria does not place him in the presidential office.
The substantive question is whether the constitutional mechanism governing temporary presidential absence has been properly documented and, if necessary, acted upon. That is also where the economic relevance ends and begins. Nigeria does not need investors to believe that every government official must remain physically in Abuja. It needs investors, citizens and public institutions to know which authority is legally empowered to act when the President is away.
Bold Lite Strategic Outlook
The current controversy exposes a governance issue more precise than the language of a “leadership vacuum.” Nigeria’s administrative machinery is functioning, but the public dispute over Section 145 shows the cost of leaving an important constitutional record open to competing interpretations. For government-facing businesses, lenders and investors, documentary certainty matters whenever presidential authority forms part of a contract, approval, guarantee or concession. The most stabilising institutional response is therefore straightforward: establish publicly whether the Section 145 declaration was transmitted, when it was received and what constitutional authority currently governs the President’s absence.
Primary Sources & Regulatory Citations Registry