Tinubu’s Third Empty Chair at UNGA: When Absence Speaks

A chair can say a lot. Sometimes it says nothing. And sometimes, its emptiness becomes the loudest statement in the room.

For the third consecutive year, Nigeria’s President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is not personally attending the United Nations General Assembly, with Vice President Kashim Shettima representing Nigeria.

That fact alone proves nothing beyond the fact of the President’s absence. It does not establish that Nigeria has been neglected diplomatically. It does not establish that the President has abandoned his international responsibilities. And it certainly does not, by itself, make his decision wrong.But it does raise a question. A serious one.

Why?

Before anyone accuses me of double standards, let me address the obvious question directly. You may ask me, Emmanuel Emeke Asiwe (EEA): “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in Bola Tinubu’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” You would be right to ask.

As a publisher and Editor-in-Chief residing in the United States, I have also been absent from the UN General Assembly since 2020. My reason, however, was medical. That distinction matters. Not because my absence is more important than the President’s, but because circumstances matter when we assess the absence of public figures from important engagements.

There is nothing constitutionally extraordinary about a president delegating an international assignment to his vice president. Governments delegate. Presidents cannot attend every meeting, every summit and every diplomatic engagement.

Nigeria is represented at the United Nations.Vice President Shettima is capable of delivering Nigeria’s position.Nigeria’s diplomats remain at work.So let us not manufacture a constitutional crisis where none exists.The issue is not delegation. The issue is repetition without sufficient public explanation.

The Empty Chair Matters
The United Nations General Assembly is not an ordinary conference.It is one of the world’s most visible stages for international diplomacy. Heads of state and government gather in New York to address global challenges, pursue bilateral relationships and advance national interests.

For Nigeria, the significance is obvious.Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and one of the continent’s most consequential political and economic actors. Its interests extend across security, trade, investment, development, climate policy, technology and international cooperation.

New York compresses an extraordinary amount of diplomacy into a few days. Presidents meet presidents.Ministers meet ministers. Diplomats negotiate.Investors seek opportunities.International institutions engage governments. And behind the cameras, conversations take place that may never appear in a headline.

A president does not have to attend personally for any of this to happen.That point should not be disputed.But personal presidential presence carries symbolic and diplomatic value of its own.It signals attention. It creates opportunities for direct engagement. It allows a president to build relationships with counterparts and personally communicate Nigeria’s priorities.

None of this guarantees results. A handshake does not produce an investment. A photograph does not create a diplomatic agreement. A speech does not resolve a security crisis.

But international relationships are built through repeated contact, and presidential diplomacy is one component of that process. That is why repeated absence deserves scrutiny. Not condemnation. Scrutiny.

Delegation Is Not the Problem

Let us be fair.A president cannot be everywhere. Nor should Nigerians expect him to be. Delegation is a normal instrument of government.
In some circumstances, it may even be the most efficient way to conduct public business.So the argument here is not that Tinubu must attend every international gathering simply because he occupies the presidency. Neither is it an indictment of Vice President Shettima’s ability to represent Nigeria.

The question is much simpler: Why has this particular pattern developed? Is it scheduling? Domestic priorities? Security? Personal circumstances? A deliberate diplomatic strategy? A decision to assign the Vice President a larger role in international representation?

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. If there is, Nigerians should hear it.That is not an unreasonable demand. It is basic public communication.

Silence Is Not a Communication Strategy

Governments should understand something fundamental about modern politics: When government does not explain, somebody else will.

And the internet is always willing to fill an information vacuum. An unexplained decision becomes a talking point.A talking point becomes a controversy.A controversy becomes a political weapon.

Before long, speculation begins masquerading as fact.This is precisely why governments must communicate clearly, especially when a decision is repeated.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has sought to connect Tinubu’s absence to questions concerning the President’s past in the United States.Those are political claims. They should be treated as claims requiring evidence, not accepted automatically as established facts.

But whether one agrees with Atiku or not misses the larger lesson. When legitimate questions remain unanswered, political actors will supply their own narratives. Critics will. Supporters will.Commentators will. Social media will. And eventually, the absence of an explanation becomes part of the controversy. The Presidency can prevent that.It does not require a dramatic press conference.It requires facts.

This Is Bigger Than Tinubu
The temptation will be to turn this into another Tinubu-versus-his-opponents argument. That would miss the point. This is not fundamentally about Tinubu. It is about Nigeria. What is Nigeria’s diplomatic strategy? What does Abuja want from the international system? How is the administration pursuing foreign investment? How is it strengthening security partnerships? How is it expanding trade relationships? How is it leveraging Nigeria’s population, economy and strategic importance?And what role does presidential diplomacy play in achieving those objectives?

Those questions remain whether Tinubu is sitting in New York, Paris or Abuja. But they become more important when a recurring pattern of presidential absence emerges.Nigeria is not an insignificant country whose presence or absence goes unnoticed. Its population, economy, security challenges and regional influence give it substantial interests in international affairs.The country therefore deserves to know how its government intends to use that position.

Three Years Is a Pattern

One absence can be explained. Two can still be circumstance. But three consecutive years inevitably invite questions about whether we are looking at a pattern rather than an isolated decision.

That does not mean the pattern is necessarily problematic. It means the pattern deserves an explanation. If the Tinubu administration has concluded that Nigeria can be represented at the General Assembly most effectively by the Vice President, tell Nigerians.If domestic responsibilities have made presidential attendance impractical, explain them.If security or personal considerations are involved, communicate what can appropriately be communicated. If this reflects a deliberate change in Nigeria’s diplomatic strategy, articulate that strategy.

There is nothing weak about explaining a presidential decision.There is nothing embarrassing about answering citizens.And there is certainly nothing undemocratic about the public asking questions. In fact, the opposite is true.Accountability begins with questions.

 The Presidency Should Stop Leaving the Story to Others

The Presidency does not have to win every argument. It does not have to answer every critic.It does not have to respond to every social-media post. But when a legitimate question concerns a repeated decision by the head of state, silence is rarely the most effective answer.Explain the decision. State the facts.Give Nigerians the context.Then let the public make its own judgment.

That is what responsible political communication should look like. Not insults.Not partisan name-calling. Not accusations that every critic is an enemy of the state. Facts.The government should own its decisions before others define them.

 The Chair in New York

Let us therefore resist two opposite temptations. The first is to pretend that Tinubu’s absence proves some larger failure that the evidence does not establish. It does not. The second is to pretend that the repeated absence raises no legitimate question. It does. Both positions oversimplify the issue.

Nigeria has representation at the United Nations. Vice President Shettima can represent the country. Diplomats can do their work. Ministers can negotiate.

None of that eliminates the legitimate public interest in understanding why the President himself has repeatedly chosen not to attend one of the world’s most prominent diplomatic gatherings. That is the question.Not whether Nigeria exists in New York. Not whether Shettima can speak. Not whether critics are politically motivated.

Why is the President repeatedly absent, and what is the government's rationale? There should be no fear of answering that question.

Nigeria is too important for its citizens to be left guessing about the direction of its international engagement. A government confident in its decisions should be willing to explain them. So perhaps the most telling image from New York is not the podium. It is the empty chair.

A chair does not speak. But when it remains empty year after year, people inevitably begin to ask why. And until the Presidency provides a clear answer, that question will remain. The empty chair may say nothing. But Nigerians are listening.

By Emmanuel Emeke Asiwe, Publisher/Editor-in-Chief