Kano State Governor Musa Rabiu Kwankwaso, in this interview with SADIQ ABDULATEEF, lays bare the intrigues and power play that trailed the controversial election of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF). He insists that the winner of the election, Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State, will not abandon the mandate without their say so.
Please give us insight into how this Governors Forum thing started, and why the choice of Governor Amaechi?
I had the chance to be a governor in 1999 when this Fourth Republic started. And I am also happy to say that I participated actively in electing our first chairman, the governor of Nassarawa State, Alhaji Abdulahhi Adamu who has always been my friend. I and a very few others decided to nominate him and he was eventually elected. It was just like any other game and everyone was happy. The day was like any other game to us because we were able to elect somebody we respected, loved and liked. He was NGF chairman until 2003 when I left.
As you know this time around 2011, I was elected governor again and I realized that just before I came in, they elected the NGF chairman, which was Governor Rotimi Amaechi. As far as I am concerned, Amaechi is a good man. He has respect for all of us and I remember when I was member of NDDC, anytime I went to Port Harcourt, all that we needed to do was for my special assistant to phone them to tell them. He never allowed me to sleep in any hotel. I was always in government house, its presidential wing and I was treated like what it should be. And we kept on having good relationship and Gods-willing I became governor and we are in the same forum.
What actually led to the current impasse in the NGF?
You see, early this year when there was a meeting, he (Amaechi) raised the issue of election. And somebody said he should continue. Many of us supported but others said no. The constitution was brought, all sought of argument were brought in, at the end of the day, it was decided that it should be postponed because the constitution of the forum has given specific days’ notice, I think three days that must be given to all members and at that time, three days were not given and we all accepted, even those who were supporting him. Another date was fixed and we all came in for the election, unfortunately, there were people who were desperately trying to kick against the election because they thought Amaechi will win. Now that election didn’t take place again especially when some people brought in an issue that we just had weeks to the handover day and people decided to say look, if we have an election, it means, you have to hand over, they said there was no problem, yet it was decided because of the desperation of some people to postpone the election again.
And along the line, some people suggested that PDP should have a leadership,and then many people thought there is linkage between that election and of course the appointment of the NGF chairman. Ofcourse we now have chairman of PDP governors forum and we met immediately after the appointment of the chairman PDP governors forum. Let me say that, at that meeting, we made it very clear that we are determined to ensure democracy in this country and if there is no democracy in governors’ forum, I begin to wonder where we can have democracy in this country. And many people don’t understand how angry many people are. Many people here in Abuja don’t understand how committed we are to ensure democracy in this country. We are not even talking of governors’ forum. So we decided to stick to our guns.
Stick to your guns? Does it mean you were put under pressure?
I have two grandchildren in primary school and no father or grandfather will choose a friend to your grandchildren. You only see them. Who is your father, they will tell you maybe he is your enemy. It is very difficult to tell your child that the father of this your friend is my enemy. A good father or grandfather is better if he keeps quiet. Because the more you tell your grandchildren that your grandfather or father is your enemy, the more they stick to their friends because they wouldn’t understand what you mean by that.
What exactly played out in the Northern States Governors’ Forum (NSGF) before the NGF election?
During the meeting of the PDP Governors’ Forum, we made the point, but you see, after the meeting we decided to call the Northern Governors Forum meeting. We sat down at the Benue governor’s lodge and at that meeting, the issue of Governor Shema came up. And I told Shema look, I am terribly disappointed with you that you are my neigbour, friend and you never came to tell me you were contesting the election and you are parading yourself like someone who was sent to us. I advised him and told him clearly thatI will never vote for him on that issue; I will never ask anybody to vote for him and I will make sure that he lost that election. I even told him to withdraw. Other governors present supported me. Isa Yuguda was there, Adamawa supported and others supported that he should go and withdraw. Unfortunately, some people took that opportunity to go and say that Shema had no support in the north. Later Shema was dropped and they brought Isa Yuguda. Isa came to me and I told him that look, I am still a villager, I behave in many ways like a villager. In my village in Kwakwanso in Kano, if a councillor goes to a family and says I am contesting to become a councillor in the morning and they accepted, when someone comes in the afternoon, they will tell him that you are late. I told him clearly, look, you are late. Let me also correct the impression that many thought North didn’t like Shema, No. That is not the issue. On that particular instance, we did not want Shema because we want to choose our own chairman. Now you are coming through the same route and I advised him, you must not try it, if you do that, you will loose. When he insisted ofcourse it was in my house, I didn’t want to go as hard as I did to Shema whom we met in a neutral ground. I told him let’s see how it goes.
A day to election, he phoned me and I said still Amaechi is our target. On the day of the election, we went to the chairman Northern Governors’ Forum. You see, it was all politics; it’s ok. Some people were determined to ensure that Amaechi didn’t win the election and on the other hand, we were determined to prove to them that nobody can shave our heads in our absence. A situation where our colleagues are going round in Abuja abusing us telling them that they can do it alone, I don’t think that is acceptable. That was why we proved to them that they are at the elementary level of politics in this country. By the time they went there, the Niger state governor’s lodge, of course we had serious deliberations. The question; was any of them ready to stepdown for the other? None was ready to step down. At the end of the day, we had as governors the privilege, the luxury of selecting who was to be the NGF governor.
Let me say that we are northerners and I think we should be consulted on what we need for the north. Some people have decided that we should take chairman governors forum. That is not our choice. We know what we want in the politics of this country and even if that is what we want, we are not expecting anybody to choose for us, we should choose for ourselves. I think that point should be very clear.
Our position is very clear with all governors, whether in the north or south that we are determined to elect the Rivers State Governor but everybody was playing game, everybody was playing politics
What exactly happened in the Niger State Governor’s Lodge?
What we did in the Niger State governors Lodge was (that) we decided to say, ‘you can’t get Shema as chairman of the minority group, the G-16, you cannot even get your second choice, the Bauchi governor that they elected’ and our group decided under my leadership to give Jang as their leader. I nominated Jang and I asked the Benue State governor to support me; he did. And many people supported Jang to be the leader because we realised that they were very desperate. We gave them who we feel should lead the minority group of G-16. Now many of them were happy because they refused to take us seriously that Amaechi should continue; they thought they could play games.
They went and had a meeting and Jang nomination was accepted. At the end of the day, they brought him to the general meeting of the governors forum and at the forum, we told them clearly that Amaechi should continue to be our chairman and all efforts to frustrate voting saying that there shouldn’t be voting. Why shouldn’t there be voting when there is no consensus, this is democracy. They were hell-bent in removing Amaechi and were also determined to ensure that our friend whoever he is among 36 governors is the chairman of our forum.
There was an election. 35 of us who were there voted and counted with the exception of the Yobe State governor who was absent. At the end of the day, the votes were separated - Amaechi 19, Jang 16. I was really shocked when the governor of Akwa Ibom brought a paper that was signed in April. Initially I was laughing but when I thought about it deeply, it was very disheartening for a governor who was supposed to be our leader, the leader of PDP Governor’s Forum.
What is important (I believe in democracy) is people to appreciate the power of ballot papers. I am the governor of Kano by the Grace of God, but I got only 46 per cent of the vote. The three major parties, ANPP, CPC and ACN and others shared 54 per cent. But what could they do, they went everywhere, they went to court but I am the governor. It is very disheartening that even at our own level, governors will sit down in a hall, get ballot papers, vote, count the votes and then somebody is saying he doesn’t agree is referring to old papers that were signed weeks before that election.
I was very angry with some rascals in Kano who went on rampage immediately after the presidential election and I was telling everybody that what they did in Kano and other states was unforgiveable but when I experienced this election, I felt terribly sad.
Especially the chairman of the PDP governors forum, when he brought that paper, the way he is talking, he is talking too much. When you see him, tell him to talk like the PDP governor’s forum chairman. Because I am beginning to be ashamed if our chairman is behaving like that.
Like I said earlier, we should decide on what we want in the north. We are fifteen governors in number. If there is anything we should be given, it is chairman of the PDP Governors’ Forum.
What do you have to say about the gale of suspensions in PDP?
I want to say, especially to those living in Abuja, that those living in glass house must not be throwing stones, especially when it comes to these dirty words: suspension, expulsion, dismissal and impeachment. These are words people should be cautious about. We want peace, stability and development in this country.
Are you worried over the NGF factionalisation?
But we are democrats and people should be conscious. Now all these things that are happening to me, I think people shouldn’t worry too much. Because in developed democracies like Britain, America, Germany everywhere, you have two major parties. In Nigeria we have one party now and other small parties. Who knows? Maybe we are having transition in this country of two parties. And before we have two parties, some people must make mistakes, big big mistakes. You begin to wonder why people are thinking in that direction because if you have party ‘A’ with 25 number, you have another one with difference of 36, and people are fighting when the table is being turned, that is how you have group of nineteen and sixteen. Certainly, governor of Yobe should be part of the 19. He doesn’t need to say it. Even, there are so many people among the 16 that are not supposed to be there. We did not even ask them to come and vote on this side because we are very considerate of their situation. We just allowed them to be there. And we didn’t even need a majority of 10; we just wanted a majority of one or two or three because we believe in cutting edge politics. If you have very sharp razor blade and the one that is blunt by looking at them, the difference is very small. But when you start cutting - that is the work of the blade - that is when you see the difference. The difference now - 19 and 16, the three is the cutting edge. And that is very important.
Back to PDP...
Let me at this time appeal to all those concerned stakeholders in PDP; be very cautious and patient to do what good politicians should do. We are the stakeholders, we are the governors, we are the field commanders, we should be important especially in meetings. The problem we have in the party now is we don’t have anywhere to go and say our minds and that is why the founding fathers of this party decided to say in the constitution that at least, every three months, we should meet at least once. Now, for how long have we met since the election of our chairman? These are the issues; we don’t have to be communicating through you the press. We should communicate among ourselves. And that is the only way. By the time we start washing our linens outside, that becomes a disaster. We are still loyal members of the party but we have rights and privileges. I cannot appoint a minister, I cannot appoint chairman, and other people should do that. But when it comes to rights and privileges of governors, they should be allowed to go and do the right thing as they understand them. So I hope that our leaders in Abuja will think more positively because if you suspend a governor, if you dismiss or expel a governor, what is he handing over to the party; salaries or allowances that he receives or offices? This party belongs to all of us, it doesn’t belong to governor, it doesn’t belong to party chairmen, it does belong to President, it belongs to everybody. When I was going into the PDP in 1998 in Kano, we had invested so much in the party, we have benefitted so much from the party. I don’t think any governor is thinking of leaving this party. But if you are suspended, dismissed or expelled, well, of course there are many options. I can assure you all those governors who voted for Amaechi consider this suspension a suspension to all of us. Not to Amaechi, not to Sokoto governor. We are even surprised that it started from them. I think there are bigger fish than Amaechi and governor of Sokoto. Most of us are disappointed that thing started from there because, on this issue, Amaechi to us has only two task; campaign, talk to the opposition because it is governors forum, not PDP forum; talk to them, we have no business with governors from other parties, but you are the candidate, talk to them, probably even soothe them to vote for him. The second option is hanging on to the contest, can you hold it? He said yes, ok, hang on to that. Now I can tell you, Amaechi cannot withdraw without our approval. He cannot. Anybody who is saying Amaechi should withdraw is wasting his time because that is not the agreement between us and Amaechi. Only two tasks before Amaechi and he is doing them well. Ours is to ensure democracy prevails in this country and if there is no democracy among ourselves then you begin to wonder. We are working very hard to ensure democracy. I can assure you if there is any election today or tomorrow, Amaechi will get more votes than 19 because all of us who voted for him are even more determined now to vote for him. I begin to wonder what is there. If you give me that position now or chairman, Northern Governors’ Forum, or PDP Governors’ Forum, I won’t take it. And I told them on many occasions because, you see when I nominated Jang, I think governor of Kwara nominated me towards the tail end. I told them, ‘look don’t put caucus here especially after we have already got a candidate. I cannot do that’. But you have got somebody that can do it and he is doing it effectively. What is the purpose of that position? It is to represent our interest. If our money is hanging somewhere, he should go and tell them to bring the money.
What is your parting shot on Amaechi?
Amaechi is a good man and he has our support. You see, this kind of election is not the type you go and give money; we are all governors. We just have a conviction in what we are doing. The more people are making noise, the more we are getting more determined. It looks to me that many people who are benefitting from this system are determined to destroy it.
Have you brought this development to the notice to the chairman, BOT and Mr President?
That is the issue; that is why I have been making reference to some of our colleagues and many other people. If you are close to the party or somewhere in Abuja, you better tell them the truth. At this level, we are playing advance level politics. Those who thought they are there now, we are proving to them that we are far away from them. They went and convinced everybody that Mr. A or Mr. B will certainly win the election and that is why they are frustrated. That is why they are on rampage. You cannot choose my own friend for me. The party didn’t call me. Nobody did. (Culled from Leadership)
 |
|
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