Irked by alleged dictatorial tendencies of President Goodluck Jonathan, Hundreds of diaspora Nigerians, resident in London, today, picketed 10 Downing Street, where they presented a copy of their petition to the British Prime Minister.
The Petition, titled UNSUSTAINABLE LEVEL OF ORCHESTRATED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN NIGERIA and signed by Daniel Timi Kurobo,reads,
"Nigeria burns and a conflagration will have severe consequences internationally if not immediately stopped. As a matter of fact, democracy in Nigeria is slowly but surely inching closer to an early grave. Nigeria is close to the precipice –suggesting the possibility of another military coup which we do not want. But it may shock you to know that Nigerians in their teeming numbers are already canvassing for this as the only antidote to a budding civilian dictatorship. This is more of a grave concern as you could imagine.
Distinguished Prime minister, Sir, we are by this significant protest today right at your official premises and in the act of the presentation of our petition seeking your immediate intervention in Nigeria before it is too late and intractable to do so. Your timely intervention through a fact-finding mission to Nigeria is of utmost concern considering the grave implication the crisis in Nigeria could have on the international community, particularly Britain. Our fears arise from the dangerous use of federal might by the President Goodluck Jonathan-led administration to undermine democratic structures in Rivers State. Plans are also at advanced stage to expand this political subterfuge to other states in the federation as Nigeria approaches the 2015 general elections. The next is Niger State and followed by Lagos and Jigawa States. The existing state of emergency in Yobe, Borno and Adamawa States is also part of the scheme.
To underscore this concern, Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka's (All Newspapers in Nigeria, May 6, 2013) recent comment on the development was quite significant. Soyinka in reaction to the series of events in South-South Nigeria's Rivers State had warned that the situation had reached an unsustainable level as tension reigned in Port Harcourt. In the statement, entitled: “Cool it, President Goodluck Jonathan,” the Nobel Laureate had urged the President to break the culture of federal executive impunity in Rivers State:
“The increasing flash points in the nation have reached an unsustainable level, and responsible governance must accept that it is an urgent duty to diminish, not increase them. Even the notoriously short Nigerian memory remains traumatised by recollection of the rape of Anambra [State] that was enabled by the connivance of federal might, and the abandonment of all moral scruples in executive disposition. The people of Ogun State were humiliated by the antics of a power besotted governor, with their elected legislators locked out of the National Assembly for upwards of a year. That hideous travesty was again made possible by the abusive use of the police. Even a child in this nation knows that the police derive its enabling and operational authority from the dictates of the centre, so there can be no disguising whose will is being executed wherever democratic norms are flouted and the people’s rights ground to mush under dictatorial heels. Before the irretrievable point of escalation is reached, we have a duty to sound a collective alarm, even without the lessons of past violations of constitutional rights and apportionments of elected representatives of the people, and their consequences.
“There is an opportunity in Rivers State to break this spiraling culture of [Federal]executive impunity – manifested in both subtle and crude ways – that is fast becoming the norm in a post-military dispensation that fitfully aspires to be called a democracy.
Soyinka also warned that mounting impunity is sliding the country in the direction of danger, calling for a halt before matters get out of hand. He also identified three institutions responsible for what he termed “this gathering dark cloud” as federal might, the Executive, and the police. This was the second time in three months that the Nobel laureate will be sounding warning of a progression to a state of impunity in the county. He concluded by saying that for democracy in Nigeria to survive, then, “the Jonathan administration should look in the direction of the current escalation in federally inspired attack in Rivers State to calm the nerves of the police.”
In spite of Soyinka’s warning the Federal Government of Nigeria to date still maintains this seeming abuse of office and continues to the democratic structures in Rivers State. The Commissioner of Police of Rivers State, Mr. Mbu Joseph Mbu is directly being instigated by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and the Inspector General of the Police (IGP) Mohammed Abubakar; and should be held accountable for any breakdown of law and order.
The above is premised on the following facts:-
1.On April 22, 2013 Rivers State House of Assembly suspended Obio/Akpor Local Government Council Chairman and other council members based on a petition bordering on allegations of financial impropriety and other fraud related allegations.
2.On April 23, 2013, a Caretaker Committee led by Mr. Chikodi Dike was constituted and sworn in.
3.On May 2, 2013, First Lady of Nigeria, Dame Patience Jonathan stops over at Port Harcourt International Airport, enroute to Bayela State. At the airport, the First Lady encountered Mr. Dike and addressed him publicly as illegal Chairman of Obio/Akpor. Then she turned to the State Director of SSS and summoned him to a meeting in Yanagoa, Bayelsa State.
4.On May 3, 2013, the Commissioner of Police, Rivers state; MR MBU JOSEPH MBU ordered the invasion, sealing-off, and besieging of Obio/Akpor Local Government Council Secretariat, without any valid instrument of law or justification, preventing the carrying on of legitimate businesses of the council. The Commissioner of Police actually sealed Obio/Akpor Council Secretariat with Mobile Police Officers and Armored Personnel Carriers, (APCs) claiming bomb scam and said it was based on the orders of IGP.
5.On May 5, 2013, more than Three hundred (300) hoodlums and gun brandishing gangsters were allowed into the Rivers state House of Assembly (Legislature) premises chanting war songs. The Assembly complex which is directly adjacent to the Police Headquarters in Moscow Road was not provided with any form of protection. The Divisional Officer (D/O) of the Assembly Police Station had disclosed that he was ordered by the Police Commissioner, MBU JOSEPH MBU to allow the hoodlums and gangsters access into the complex. This is also in the face of an earlier ordered withdrawal of security operatives deployed to protect the Assembly Complex on “orders from above” by the said Commissioner of Police. The Assembly Complex is currently sealed-off and under siege. The scenario also played out at the Obio/Akpor Council secretariat, Rumuodumaya on same day. At the moment, 27 members of the House and their families are under constant intimidation, threats of arrest and assassination by persons believed to have the tacit support of the Commissioner of Police, Rivers state. This development has made it practically impossible to carry out constitutional responsibilities
6On May 4, 2013, Commissioner of Police and other Rivers State Security Chiefs in charge of Army, Navy, Airforce and the Director of the State Security Services (SSS) met with the First Lady in Yenagoa, Bayelsa. This remains a constitutional breach and a provocative act of tyranny which ordinarily ought to have caused an immediate investigation by the National Assembly (NASS).This constitutional breach should be a weighty concern to the international community given that the First Lady can unilaterally enflame war against another country while the President is asleep. This development has caused restiveness in the Nigerian military and the implication cannot be ascertained now.
The orchestrated political tension as inspired by the President, wife and his officials is an unfortunate development for Nigeria’s desperate search for a political order based on democracy. Almost simultaneously, an Abuja high court (that clearly has no jurisdiction to hear a matter of such nature) gave a politically toxic and legally dubious verdict, ceding control of the ruling PDP in Rivers State to an anti-Amaechi party executive. This was done to instigate violence in Rivers State, thus introducing a dangerous dimension to the crisis in Nigeria – the Jonathan-led administration intimidates and has successfully coaxed the judiciary to submission. Now, the administration now writes legal decisions for judges. In a choreographed series of consequent manoeuvres inspired by the President and his officials, the new PDP executive in the state has quickly issued a series of directives to both factional party faithful and even the elected government of the state. The undisguised aim is to antagonise the sitting governor of the state and create an atmosphere of confusion.
In tow, the Nigeria police command in the state has acted in an obvious partisan routine that leaves no other assumption than that it is out to protect the anti-Amaechi forces. It has taken over the premises of a duly constituted local government and overrun the premises of the State House of Assembly. As if that is not enough, the police have also withdrawn police security from a sitting local government chairman and other officials for daring to openly express support for the Governor – thus leaving them vulnerable to attacks.
This disturbing development has further strengthened the arguments of those who have canvassed for the establishment of State Police in each state of the federation. Now, with the development in Rivers state, evidence on the ground suggests that no fewer than 21 states have resolved to go ahead with the establishment of state Police irrespective of concerns on the modalities for recruitment.
These developments in Rivers state came in the immediate aftermath of a series of Abuja meetings between the president and a selection of governors in a bid to convince them to avoid re-electing Governor Amaechi who sought and convincingly won a second term as Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum. The failure of the President’s candidate for this same election has upped the ante, resulting to the President breaking the group into two factions.
All these have been intended to provoke Governor’s camp into violence in Rivers State even though the governor has decided to pursue his case through legal process. The Governor has notably advised all his supporters and aides not to engage in any form of violence, no matter the provocation. When some thugs imported from neighbouring states and ex-militants almost overran the Government House in Port Harcourt on May 16, 2013, the governor told security men not to fire a shot. To avoid mayhem, the governor left the Government House. Amaechi’s position is that democracy can only thrive where the rule of law is allowed to take its normal course. The introduction of the ex-militants into the crisis was to prevent the Governor from traveling Governors Forum election.
When a president of a federation recruits ex-militants and terrorists to fight his political battles, he is not only setting a dangerous precedent, he is also showing how he has unknowingly rubbished the significance of the most exalted office in the land. Mr. Prime Minister, you may wish to imagine what the perception of the good people of Britain would be if you employ the masterminds of that dastardly and condemnable Woolwich killings as your political thugs in the next elections. In Nigeria, it is regrettable that is the only practical credential needed by the federal authorities to employ them as thugs in the next elections. This explains why it is feared that the unnecessary prolongation of the Boko Haram crisis is deliberate design for the 2015 elections.
Taken together, these events and actions indicate clearly that the democracy travails in Rivers State are coming directly from the presidency in Abuja. The footprints are all too familiar: presidential political displeasure with a governor followed by the unleashing of the instruments of the federal state to intimidate and harass the offending governor; EFCC, spurious allegations of wrongdoing, the use of the security apparatus to partisan ends, the recruitment of political jobbers and miscreants to create confusion and compromising the judiciary to obtain court judgments that will justify a forcible takeover of the administration of the state through the declaration of a state of emergency. This seems to be the path that the Jonathan forces are striding on the matter of Rivers State.
Beyond this repugnant show of Abuja might, however, the Rivers State situation has implications that go far beyond the immediate egos and personalities in the conflict. Unless it is checked now and effectively too, a number of tragic consequences await Nigeria and the international community. Party elders in the state have expressed their displeasure at the turn of events. Labour has sounded a note of warning. Students and youth of the state and the nation have indicated that they will defend Amaechi. The ordinary people of Rivers State are unhappy that their recent developmental gains may be lost if anything untoward happens to Amaechi. A critical majority of governors of both the PDP and the opposition parties have weighed in on Amaechi’s side. An otherwise localised development looks set to aggravate tensions in a nation already beset by numerous national security threats.
In a multi-pronged tactical battle against the Rivers governor, the Presidency began releasing a torrent of accusations against Amaechi:
of using the NGF to challenge Jonathan’s authority.
On realising that the above accusation may be too tenuous to justify, since he was only a spokesman of the NGF, then the next accusation became that Amaechi was having the ambition to contest the presidential election as a running mate to either Jigawa Governor Sule Lamido or Niger Governor Babangida Aliyu. None of the presidential handlers had mentioned when mere ambition has become a sin in a democracy.
Amaechi has been brazenly tagged a traitor to Jonathan’s second term undeclared ambition, and therefore a traitor to Niger Delta interests. This was reinforced so profoundly by Nigeria’s ex Niger Delta militant leader, Asari Dokubo. These attacks are ultimately aimed at achieving one objective - prevent him from having a hand in who become the governor of Rivers state and the president of the federation in 2015. Mr. Prime Minister, it may interest you to note that other militants in the league of Asari Dokubo have also threatened to go to war if the president loses the 2015 elections. To this, the northern youth have also dared them to commence the war now because they would not vote for the president. Thus, you could imagine that war already looms in Nigeria long before the 2015 elections.
These assaults are likely to mortally injure Nigeria’s quest for a viable democratic culture. If the crime of the governor is that he is opposed to the president on a number of national issues, then there is the need to review our understanding of democracy. The freedom to canvass opposing views is integral to any healthy democratic culture. Even the fact of belonging to the same party does not deprive individual partisan leaders of the right to disagree on policies and issues. In the best of democratic traditions, most large political parties contain various strands and tendencies. We see the emergence of radicals like Rotimi Amaechi in the PDP as a healthy development if the party were to reform itself and align with the currents in the larger polity. The rise of a progressive arm of the PDP would be the best guarantee that the party will not be swept out of power by the oncoming gale of progressivism that is the driving force of the new opposition merger.
Even if the governor were to challenge President Jonathan in an open convention for the next presidential ticket of the PDP, it would enhance the democratic credentials of a party that makes such a contest possible. For instance, the current vice-president of South Africa is on record as having contested against President Jacob Zuma in the last presidential elections. In spite of that, they have worked together and the ANC is the stronger for it. Similarly, Hillary Clinton waged a vicious contest for the Democratic Party’s presidential ticket against Barack Obama but ended up being one of America’s best Secretaries of State in US history and easily Obama’s greatest political asset and ally.
Beside the above, there is the determined attempt by the federal administration in re-igniting the violent arm of the Odua People’s Congress (OPC) in order to replicate what Boko Haram has done in parts of North in South-West Nigeria. This is in the guise of employing the OPC militants to protect petroleum pipelines in the region and through the formation of the Unity Party of Nigeria. This is aimed at reducing the influence of the dominant political gladiators – the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) in the region. Your Excellency, if these undemocratic practices under the Jonathan-led administration persists and spreads and in addition to the Boko Haram insurgencies in Northern Nigeria, there is every possibility that more than Thirty Million Nigerians would be seeking asylum in Western nations, particularly in Britain.
Your Excellency is hereby invited to note that your prompt intervention hinged mainly on your democratic values and concerns for international conflicts, would be in the interest of all friends of Nigeria and chiefly for a nation perennially beset with problems of grave strategic implications. What we ask for is so minimal -:
the enthronement of genuine democracy in Nigeria;
dictatorship in Nigeria must be condemned by the international community
holding the despot in Abuja accountable for any breakdown of law and order in Nigeria;
the president must stop the provocative act of monopolising political ambitions;
The Jonathan-led administration must stop fraternising with militants and terrorists;
President Goodluck Jonathan should be encouraged to be a moderate, outward-looking, pluralistic and democratic; and
The president must prove he can lead and govern.
Accept the assurances of our high esteem."
 |
|
Shettima at UNGA: Africa Demands a Seat at the Global Table
Nigeria has taken its campaign for a bigger African voice in global affairs to the heart of the United Nations, with Vice President Kashim Shettima demanding sweeping reform of the UN Security Council and permanent representation for Africa.
Delivering President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s address at the **81st United Nations General Assembly** in New York on Thursday, Shettima said the international system created after World War II could no longer adequately reflect the realities of the modern world.
Nigeria called for **at least two permanent seats for Africa**, with the full rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including veto rights for as long as the veto remains part of the Security Council, alongside **five non-permanent African seats**.
The demand puts Africa's long-standing campaign for greater representation at the centre of Nigeria's message to world leaders.
1945 cannot define 2026’
The Nigerian delegation argued that the distribution of power established in 1945 has left Africa under-represented in the institution responsible for some of the world's most consequential decisions on peace and security.
For Abuja, the issue is not simply about seats at the UN. It is about giving African countries a greater role in decisions that directly affect the continent.
Nigeria anchored its position on the **Ezulwini Consensus**, the African Union's common position on Security Council reform.
CONFLICTS: NIGERIA CALLS FOR DIPLOMACY
Shettima's address also turned to the conflicts confronting the international community.
Nigeria called for stronger diplomacy, respect for international law and protection of civilians, while urging greater international efforts to resolve conflicts, including the crisis in Sudan.
The Nigerian position was that lasting peace cannot be secured solely through military action and that diplomacy, dialogue and negotiated settlements remain essential tools for resolving conflicts.
TERRORISM: ‘NO COUNTRY CAN FIGHT ALONE’
With Nigeria continuing to confront terrorism and other forms of transnational crime, the address placed international security cooperation high on the agenda.
Nigeria called for stronger intelligence-sharing, action against terrorist financing and greater cooperation to prevent illicit weapons from crossing borders.
But Abuja also linked security to development, pointing to education, economic opportunity, accountable governance and protection of citizens** as important elements of long-term stability.
AFRICA’S WEALTH: FROM RAW MATERIALS TO INDUSTRIAL POWER
The Nigerian message went beyond politics and security.Tinubu's address, delivered by Shettima, called for Africa to transform its vast natural resources into industrial and economic opportunities by expanding **local processing, manufacturing, technology and value-added production**.
Nigeria also highlighted the African Continental Free Trade Area as an opportunity to expand intra-African trade and build stronger regional supply chains.
The message was clear: Africa's resources should generate greater value, jobs and investment within the continent rather than being exported largely in raw form.
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
Nigeria also reaffirmed its commitment to climate action, including its 2060 net-zero target, while stressing the need for financing, technology transfer and international support for developing countries.
Abuja argued that climate action and economic development should be pursued together, particularly in countries still struggling to provide reliable energy and economic opportunities for rapidly growing populations.
THE NIGERIAN MESSAGE
From the UN podium in New York, Shettima delivered a message that combined Nigeria's foreign-policy priorities with its wider vision for Africa: **greater representation, stronger security cooperation, economic transformation and a more inclusive international system.**
For Nigeria, the Security Council reform campaign remains a central part of that agenda.
The demand from Abuja is straightforward: **Africa should have a permanent voice in the room when decisions affecting international peace, security and global governance are made. And Nigeria says it intends to keep making that case.
News
CBN Slashes Interest Rate to 23% in Major Policy Adjustment
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has reduced its benchmark interest rate from 26.5 per cent to 23 per cent, marking a significant shift in its monetary policy direction.
CBN Governor, Olayemi Cardoso, announced the decision on Tuesday following the conclusion of the Monetary Policy Committee’s (MPC) 307th meeting in Abuja.
According to Cardoso, the committee reviewed developments in both the global and domestic economies, assessed emerging risks and considered their potential implications for monetary policy before reaching its decision.
“The Committee decided as follows: reset the monetary policy rate at 23 per cent,” the governor said.
The latest move represents a 350-basis-point reduction in the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR). It follows two consecutive MPC meetings at which the rate was left unchanged, after the committee lowered it by 50 basis points in February 2026.
In addition to cutting the MPR, the committee adjusted the standing facility corridor to +50 and -300 basis points around the new benchmark rate.
However, the CBN retained existing Cash Reserve Requirement (CRR) levels at 45 per cent for deposit money banks, 16 per cent for merchant banks and 75 per cent for non-TSA public-sector deposits.
Cardoso explained that the changes were designed to improve the effectiveness of monetary policy by strengthening the transmission of policy decisions through the financial system.
He said the adjustment was also part of efforts to restore the MPR as the primary signal of the CBN’s monetary policy and improve the operation of the monetary policy framework.
According to the governor, the MPC viewed the recalibration as an operational adjustment rather than a fundamental shift in the bank’s monetary policy stance.
“The Committee emphasized that the duration of the corridor does not constitute a change in the current monetary policy stance, but rather an operational reset to enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy and support the transition to an inflation targeting framework,” he said.
The committee also noted ongoing efforts by the CBN to strengthen its monetary policy implementation framework. Cardoso said transaction-based operational benchmarks had improved the transparency of money-market operations.
The MPC consequently concluded that resetting the MPR and adjusting the policy corridor would bring the monetary policy framework more closely in line with prevailing market conditions.
The committee said the changes are expected to improve policy transmission and reinforce the MPR’s role as the central benchmark for monetary policy.
Members further maintained that the latest adjustments should be viewed primarily as an operational realignment of the framework and not, in themselves, as a change in the underlying monetary policy stance.
Business
In The Spotlight
Editorial:Trump @ UNGA: Power Is Not a Substitute for Strategy
President Donald Trump came before the United Nations this week with a message that has defined much of his second presidency: The United States is powerful, it intends to use that power, and it will not permit international institutions to place limits on American sovereignty.
There was little ambiguity in the message. Trump celebrated military strength, demanded greater control over America’s borders, challenged international institutions and portrayed American technological leadership as a strategic necessity. On Iran, Gaza, immigration, the International Criminal Court and artificial intelligence, the president returned repeatedly to the same principle: Nations must defend their own interests, and the United States must remain free to act.
That is a coherent philosophy. But coherence is not the same as effectiveness.
The question raised by this speech is not whether America should be strong. No serious foreign policy can begin from the premise that American power is irrelevant. The question is what that power is for — and whether it is being used in ways that make the United States more secure over the long term.
Trump's remarks on Iran illustrated the dilemma.
He reaffirmed that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and paired the possibility of diplomacy with warnings of devastating military consequences.
Deterrence has always depended partly on credibility. But credibility is not measured only by the willingness to threaten force. It is also measured by the ability to achieve a political outcome once force has been used.
Wars can begin with clear objectives and end with consequences no government anticipated. The history of American foreign policy offers ample evidence that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control.
That is why diplomacy cannot simply be regarded as the alternative to strength. At its best, diplomacy is one of the instruments through which strength is converted into durable agreements.
The same distinction matters in Trump's approach to the United Nations.
The president has argued that international institutions have become too costly, too bureaucratic and too willing to intrude upon national sovereignty. His administration has pursued reductions in America's financial and institutional commitments to the United Nations.
There is nothing inherently wrong with demanding accountability from an international organization. The United Nations deserves scrutiny. Its bureaucracy can be inefficient, its member states often disagree and its institutions can fail to prevent the very conflicts they were created to address.
But the choice is not simply between an ineffective United Nations and an unconstrained America.
International institutions exist in part because some problems cannot be solved effectively by individual nations acting alone. Nuclear proliferation is one. Global pandemics are another. Artificial intelligence increasingly belongs on that list.
Trump's comments about AI therefore deserve particular attention. He emphasized American technological leadership and warned against international regulation that could restrain innovation.
The United States has obvious reasons to remain at the forefront of AI development. But technological leadership and international coordination are not necessarily opposing objectives. The challenge is to develop rules that protect security without freezing innovation.
That requires American leadership, not American isolation.
The president's immigration argument followed the same pattern. He presented control of the border as an essential expression of national sovereignty and rejected the notion that international norms should prevent governments from determining who may enter their territory.
A sovereign nation plainly has an interest in controlling its borders. But sovereignty also carries responsibilities. The United States, like other countries, must reconcile border enforcement with its legal and humanitarian obligations.
The difficult work of governing begins where slogans end.
That is ultimately what was missing from the most sweeping parts of Trump's speech: not conviction, but attention to the institutional machinery required to turn conviction into lasting results.
America can impose costs on adversaries. It can withdraw from agreements. It can reduce contributions to international organizations. It can threaten overwhelming force. It can use its enormous economic and technological advantages.
But power has a second dimension that is easier to overlook: the ability to persuade allies, maintain coalitions, preserve diplomatic channels and build institutions capable of surviving changes in leadership.
The United States did not become the world's leading power merely because it possessed the world's strongest military. It built alliances. It established institutions. It cultivated economic relationships. It persuaded other countries that American leadership could serve interests beyond America's own.
Trump's speech represents a different emphasis.
It places sovereignty before institutions, pressure before accommodation and national interest before international consensus.
There is a legitimate debate to be had over whether the postwar international system has become too cumbersome, too expensive or insufficiently accountable. But reforming that system and weakening it are not the same thing.
The distinction will matter greatly in the years ahead.
A stronger America is not necessarily an America that stands alone. Nor is international cooperation synonymous with surrendering sovereignty.
The enduring challenge of American foreign policy is to combine power with restraint, independence with alliances and national interest with the recognition that American security is inseparable from the wider world.
Trump's speech made clear which side of that debate he occupies.The more consequential question is what happens next.
History will not ultimately judge the speech by its applause lines, its threats or its declarations of American strength. It will judge the policy that follows — and whether that policy produces a world in which the United States is not merely more powerful, but more secure.
Power matters. But power, by itself, is not a strategy.
In The Spotlight
Who Is in Charge? Tinubu Is in Paris, Shettima Is in New York
By now, Nigerians deserve more than explanations. They deserve clarity. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in Paris. Vice President Kashim Shettima is in New York.
And Nigeria is in Abuja, Lagos, Kano, Port Harcourt, Maiduguri and everywhere else Nigerians are dealing with the daily business of surviving, working and waiting for government to deliver. So, a simple question is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid:Who is in charge?
Before anyone dismisses that question as opposition politics, let us establish the facts. Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a working vacation. He subsequently moved from London to Paris and, on September 21, the Presidency announced that he had extended his stay by a few days and would return at the weekend.
Shettima left Nigeria on September 20 for New York, where he is representing the President and leading Nigeria's delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
The government says there is no vacuum. It says Tinubu remains in contact with officials at home and continues to direct the affairs of government. It also says Shettima has been given the President's mandate to represent Nigeria at the UN.
Fine. But that does not make the question disappear.It makes the question more important.
A country cannot run on “trust us”
Government is not supposed to operate on whispers, assumptions or political reassurance.It operates through institutions.
It operates through constitutional authority. It operates through clearly defined responsibilities. And when the President is abroad for an extended period while the Vice President is also outside the country, Nigerians have every right to ask where executive authority is located and who is exercising it.
This is particularly relevant because Nigeria's Constitution provides a specific mechanism for a President who is proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office.
That mechanism exists for a reason.It is designed to prevent uncertainty.It is designed to prevent a vacuum.It is designed toensure that, at every moment, Nigerians know who is constitutionally responsible for the presidency.
So why should Nigerians have to debate the issue?
The Presidency says everything is fine
The government insists that there is no disruption to governance.The Presidency says Tinubu has remained engaged from abroad. It points to decisions taken by the President while away and says the Vice President's trip to New York is an official assignment.
There is nothing inherently unusual about a Nigerian president travelling abroad.There is nothing unusual about a vice president representing the country at the United Nations.
The problem is the combination.The President is away. The Vice President is away. And the country is being told that everything is perfectly normal.
Perhaps it is.But if it is, then proving it should be easy.Tell Nigerians clearly who is exercising presidential authority.
Tell Nigerians whether the constitutional procedure has been followed.Tell Nigerians who is accountable for presidential decisions while both men are outside the country.This should not be difficult.
Leadership is also about presence
There is a difference between saying government is functioning and demonstrating that leadership is present.Nigeria is not short of challenges.
The cost of living remains a major concern. Security remains a national issue. Unemployment and economic hardship continue to affect households. Nigerians are demanding better public services and greater accountability.
At such a moment, leadership cannot be reduced to whether instructions can be transmitted from one continent to another.
Leadership is also about visibility. It is about being present when the country needs reassurance. It is about being accessible when difficult questions arise. It is about giving citizens confidence that somebody is firmly in control. A president does not have to sit permanently in Aso Rock to govern Nigeria. But Nigerians should never be left wondering whether anyone is sitting firmly at the controls.
Paris is not Abuja
There is another uncomfortable truth.Nigeria's political class has become remarkably comfortable governing from airports, hotel suites, foreign capitals and conference rooms.The rest of the country does not have that luxury.
The Nigerian worker cannot take a working vacation from inflation.The small business owner cannot take annual leave from electricity costs.The parent struggling with school fees cannot postpone the bills until the President returns. The young graduate without a job cannot simply wait for the government to reconnect with reality.
For ordinary Nigerians, the country does not go on vacation.That is why the optics matter.While the President is in Paris and the Vice President is in New York, millions of Nigerians remain at home confronting the consequences of government policy every day.
This is bigger than Tinubu
The danger is that this debate becomes another partisan shouting match. Supporters will say the President is working.
Opponents will say the government has abandoned its responsibilities. Both sides can shout themselves hoarse.
But the Constitution does not work by volume. The question is not whether Tinubu's supporters are satisfied.The question is not whether his opponents are outraged.The question is whether the constitutional chain of executive authority is clear. That is an institutional question, not a party question. And the National Assembly has a role to play in ensuring that Nigerians are not left guessing.
Nigeria deserves an answer
There is something deeply unhealthy about a democracy in which citizens have to ask social media, political parties and television commentators who is exercising presidential power.
The answer should be official.It should be constitutional.It should be unambiguous.If Tinubu is fully exercising the powers of President from Paris, say so.If Shettima is exercising presidential functions under the constitutional provisions governing presidential absence, say so.If there is no constitutional problem, explain precisely why.
But please, stop treating a legitimate question as an attack on the government.A government confident in its constitutional position should welcome clarity.
Who is in charge?
This is ultimately not about Paris.It is not about New York.It is not even primarily about Tinubu or Shettima. It is about the Nigerian presidency. A republic of more than 200 million people should not have an invisible question mark hanging over its executive authority.
Tinubu can travel.Shettima can travel.Government can continue. But constitutional responsibility must remain visible.
Because when both the President and Vice President are outside the country, Nigerians should not have to look at a map to figure out where their government is.
They should be able to look at the Constitution.And the answer should be unmistakable.Who is in charge? Nigeria deserves to know.
By Emmanuel Emeke Asiwe, Publisher/Editor-in-Chief