By Benjamin Mutum – Biyu, Esq
When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took office in May 2023, he carried the weight of expectation not only from Nigerians but also from Africa and the wider international community. As the continent’s most populous nation and its largest democracy, Nigeria has long been expected to provide leadership — in peacekeeping, in regional diplomacy, in economic integration, and in articulating Africa’s demands to the wider world.
That is why his repeated absence from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the annual summit of world leaders in New York, is more than a scheduling oddity. It is fast becoming a pattern, and one that sends a troubling signal about Nigeria’s global posture.
For the second year in a row, Vice President Kashim Shettima will represent Nigeria at UNGA, delivering the national statement and holding bilateral meetings on the sidelines. Last year, at UNGA 79, Tinubu cited pressing domestic challenges as justification for staying home. This year, the reasons have been less clear, with the Presidency merely announcing that Shettima will lead the delegation.
On the surface, there is nothing unusual about a Vice President representing a country at the United Nations. Leaders frequently delegate such tasks when domestic pressures demand their presence at home. But when such delegation becomes the norm rather than the exception — especially for a country of Nigeria’s size and ambition — questions inevitably arise.
Tinubu’s absence would be easier to defend if he had consistently restricted his international travel. Instead, the opposite is true. Since assuming office, the President has embarked on a series of high-profile overseas visits: to France, where he has spent extended periods; to Brazil, on a state visit in August 2025; and to the small Caribbean island of Saint Lucia, where he remained for more than a week.
These journeys raise the obvious question: If the President has the time and stamina for lengthy stays in France and St. Lucia, why is the UN General Assembly — arguably the most important multilateral diplomatic gathering in the world — the event he repeatedly decides to skip?
This contrast in priorities creates a perception problem. It suggests that Tinubu sees more value in episodic bilateral trips, often in relatively controlled settings, than in the rough-and-tumble of multilateral diplomacy. For a country that seeks a permanent seat on a reformed UN Security Council and that aspires to lead Africa’s voice in global governance debates, this is a strategic misstep.
The United Nations General Assembly is far more than a week of speeches. It is the central marketplace of global diplomacy. Heads of State and Government gather in one place, making possible a dense schedule of bilateral and multilateral meetings that would otherwise take months or years to arrange.
For African leaders, UNGA provides a unique platform to raise issues of existential importance: climate change adaptation and financing, debt restructuring, equitable trade, counterterrorism cooperation, and reform of international institutions. Nigeria, with its 200 million people, its economic weight, and its role in West African security, has a special responsibility to ensure Africa’s concerns are heard.
When Nigeria’s President speaks in New York, the world listens differently than when a deputy delivers the message. Presence matters. Body language matters. A leader’s personal networks, cultivated in the corridors and side-events of UNGA week, often matter more than the official speech itself.
By skipping UNGA twice in two years, Tinubu is effectively reducing Nigeria’s visibility at precisely the moment the continent needs assertive voices in global debates.
The Presidency has done little to explain these choices beyond vague references to “domestic priorities.” But Nigerians and the wider diplomatic community are left to speculate: Is this about health? Is it about political calculation? Is it a deliberate strategy to downplay multilateral forums in favour of bilateral ties? Or is it simply an underestimation of UNGA’s value?
This opacity feeds rumours. Tinubu’s frequent stays in France have already triggered speculation about his health, which the Presidency has denied. But without transparency — a clear schedule, medical updates when necessary, or an honest accounting of the President’s foreign policy priorities — rumours will continue to fill the vacuum.
For a country still grappling with economic hardship, insecurity, and widespread public disillusionment, perception matters. Citizens want to know whether their leaders are using scarce resources effectively, and whether international trips bring tangible benefits to ordinary Nigerians.
Nigeria’s absence at the highest level also carries costs beyond perception. UNGA is a prime venue for bilateral deals — from energy and infrastructure financing to security partnerships. Missing out on those opportunities may mean slower progress on projects that could bring investment or ease Nigeria’s fiscal burdens.
Moreover, Nigeria’s traditional claim to continental leadership is weakened when its President is not in the room. Other African leaders — from South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, or Egypt — step into the void, shaping narratives and securing partnerships. Over time, this erodes Nigeria’s diplomatic capital, making it harder to mobilize support for its positions in future negotiations.
It is tempting to dismiss UNGA as a talk shop. Indeed, many leaders deliver speeches that are quickly forgotten. But for Nigeria, the symbolism of presence is itself strategic. A country battling terrorism in the northeast, coping with the ripple effects of climate shocks, and struggling with crushing debt must be seen to be engaged at the centre of global governance.
Tinubu’s foreign policy cannot be reduced to photo opportunities in Paris or extended visits to sunlit islands. Nigeria’s credibility depends on consistent engagement in the multilateral system. Retreating from that stage is not only a missed opportunity — it signals to partners and adversaries alike that Nigeria may no longer aspire to play the role it once did.
As Nigerians and observers assess this pattern, several valid questions emerge:
• Why is UNGA expendable when less consequential trips are not?
• What precisely are the “domestic priorities” that prevent the President’s attendance this year?
• How does the Presidency intend to rebuild Nigeria’s influence in multilateral fora if the President avoids the world’s premier diplomatic gathering?
• Will the government publish a full travel log, including costs and outcomes, so citizens can judge the value of these overseas trips?
• At a time when speculation about health lingers, would it not be wise for the Presidency to issue a formal medical update to reassure the public and the diplomatic corps?
Nigeria cannot afford to shrink its voice on the global stage. Its challenges are too vast, its potential too great, and its responsibilities too weighty. Leadership requires presence, and presence requires consistency.
By skipping UNGA again, President Tinubu risks undermining the very global influence he promised to restore. The Vice President may deliver Nigeria’s words in New York, but the world will note who is missing from the stage.
Until clear answers are provided, the impression will remain: that Africa’s supposed giant is retreating at the very moment it should be standing tall.
September 2025
Abuja
