President Bola Tinubu will not attend the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, his third consecutive absence from the annual gathering, and the decision has drawn a demand for explanation from his leading opponent in the 2027 race.
In a statement on Sunday, 20 September 2026, the spokesperson to Vice President Kashim Shettima, Stanley Nkwocha, said Tinubu had mandated Shettima to represent him and lead Nigeria’s delegation. According to the statement, the delegation includes Rivers State governor Siminalayi Fubara, Zamfara State governor Dauda Lawal, and other ministers and senior officials.
Nkwocha said Shettima would deliver Nigeria’s national statement at the general debate, which runs from 22 to 28 September under the theme “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all.” He said the Vice President would also hold bilateral meetings on the sidelines to advance the administration’s economic diplomacy.
The absence carries added weight because it followed an earlier assurance of attendance. Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim, had said in July, after meeting Tinubu at the Presidential Villa, that the President had agreed to attend and would present his reforms to the international community. Ibrahim said Tinubu was expected to sit close to United States President Donald Trump, though he did not confirm a bilateral meeting between the two.
By the record, Tinubu attended the 78th session in 2023. Shettima represented him at the 79th and 80th sessions in 2024 and 2025, and will now do so again in 2026.
The Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, led the criticism. In a statement issued on Sunday through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said three consecutive absences required a clear explanation from the Presidency.
Atiku argued that the assembly is more than a ceremonial gathering. “UNGA is not merely a ceremonial gathering or an annual photo opportunity. Its sidelines are where leaders hold decisive bilateral meetings, court investors, negotiate trade partnerships, mobilise development finance and make the case for their countries,” he said.
He acknowledged that a Vice President may represent the country, but maintained that the personal presence of a President carries an authority and visibility that delegation cannot fully replace. He also referenced Ibrahim’s earlier remark about a seat being secured for the President, and questioned why it was not used.
Some critics and social media users have linked the absence to allegations about Tinubu’s past dealings with United States law enforcement. Those allegations, which have circulated for years, remain unproven, and the Presidency has previously dismissed them. Atiku, in his statement, framed the matter as a question rather than a finding, asking whether the President’s documented history with US agencies had become a burden on Nigeria’s foreign relations.
The claim drew responses on both sides online. On X, a user with the handle @olanrewaju2sure described the decision as the best one available, blaming what he called desperation on Atiku’s part and the activities of a lobbying firm. Another user, Stephen Lenebari, argued on Facebook that there was nothing wrong with a sitting president delegating power, noting that presidential immunity would in any case defer any allegation until after office.
The Presidency has not issued a detailed public explanation for the change from the earlier confirmed attendance, beyond the statement directing Shettima to lead the delegation. It has, on previous occasions, argued that the simultaneous or separate travel of the President and Vice President does not create a vacuum in governance, citing similar arrangements under earlier administrations.
Delegating representation at the assembly is not unusual in itself. Nigeria was represented at ministerial level at the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa after Shettima’s aircraft developed a fault in New York, and other countries routinely send deputies or foreign ministers to the general debate. What has drawn attention in this case is the reversal from a publicly announced plan for the President to attend in person.
Beyond the immediate exchange, the episode feeds directly into the emerging 2027 contest. Atiku and Tinubu have traded positions almost weekly on the economy, and Atiku is separately pursuing a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest, a matter adjourned to 28 September. The UNGA dispute adds a foreign policy dimension to a rivalry that has so far been fought largely on domestic ground.
For now, two points are settled. Tinubu will not appear in person in New York, and Shettima will deliver Nigeria’s statement in his place. What remains open is the Presidency’s fuller account of the decision, and whether the absence will carry the diplomatic and economic cost that critics have warned of or prove, as the government’s past position suggests, a routine act of delegation.