Following President Bola Tinubu’s extended absence from the country, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has raised questions over the status of presidential authority. According to reports, this development comes after the 21-day period elapsed, citing Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution which stipulates that the Vice President should take over in the event of the President’s incapacity or absence.
Atiku, in a statement on Monday, expressed concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the leadership of the country during Tinubu’s extended vacation. The statement, which was released to news outlets, highlighted the potential constitutional implications of the President’s prolonged absence.
It is worth noting that this incident has sparked discussions on social media, with some Nigerians expressing concerns about the political landscape and others debating the interpretation of Section 145 of the Constitution.
As of now, there has been no official statement from the Presidency regarding Tinubu’s return or any arrangements made during his absence. The Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo, has not been seen taking on any presidential duties.
This development comes after Tinubu’s third consecutive absence from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Atiku, in a separate statement, questioned Tinubu’s absence from UNGA, stating that his absence was a missed opportunity to address critical global issues affecting Nigeria.
This story matters to Nigerian readers because it raises concerns about the constitutional process during the President’s absence and the potential impact on governance. It also underscores the importance of clear communication from the Presidency in such circumstances.
By
