Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Tinubu over his reported absence from the 81st United Nations General Assembly, describing it as his third consecutive absence from the annual gathering.

Atiku, in a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, said Tinubu was absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and the 81st in 2026, with Vice President Kashim Shettima representing Nigeria.

Atiku said the three consecutive absences required an explanation, particularly against the background of what he described as Tinubu’s documented history involving United States law-enforcement agencies.

“The United Nations General Assembly is one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings. It brings together the representatives of the UN’s 193 member states and provides a unique platform for presidents and prime ministers to defend their countries’ interests, negotiate partnerships and shape global decisions on trade, security and development,” Atiku said.

“Vice President Shettima may represent Nigeria capably, but representation by delegation cannot permanently substitute for the personal authority, visibility and responsibility of the President.

“Tinubu cannot continue to treat Nigeria’s seat at the world’s biggest diplomatic table as though it were an inconvenient appointment that can be endlessly outsourced.”

According to Atiku, the sidelines of the UNGA provide opportunities for leaders to hold bilateral meetings, attract investors, negotiate trade partnerships, mobilise development finance and advance their countries’ interests.

He argued that repeated presidential absence could affect Nigeria’s ability to take advantage of such opportunities.

“Presidential absence on the global stage has consequences. 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.

“When a President makes himself absent from that stage for three consecutive years, his country loses opportunities.”

Atiku further linked the issue to Nigeria’s economic challenges, arguing that reduced investment and capital inflows could have consequences for the economy and ordinary Nigerians.

“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs. Reduced capital inflows place additional pressure on the local currency. A weaker naira raises the cost of imports, production, transportation and food,” he said.

“These are among the economic pressures now punishing Nigerian families through the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.”

Atiku also questioned the reported arrangement by Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jimoh Ibrahim, to secure a seat for Tinubu near United States President Donald Trump.

“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.

“If proximity to President Trump was considered such a diplomatic achievement, why did Tinubu abandon the opportunity and send his deputy? Why celebrate securing a strategic seat for the President when the President had no intention of occupying it?”

He also raised questions about the reported expenditure of up to $9 million on American lobbyists by the Tinubu administration, asking what Nigerians gained from the engagement.

“That contradiction becomes even more scandalous when Nigerians remember that Tinubu’s administration committed up to $9 million of Nigeria’s scarce foreign exchange to American lobbyists supposedly hired to improve its standing before the government and people of the United States,” Atiku said.

“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money? Why spend millions of dollars lobbying Washington while Tinubu repeatedly stays away from New York?”

Atiku then connected Tinubu’s absence from the UNGA to controversies surrounding his past dealings in the United States.

He referenced Case No. 93 C 4483 before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, saying the United States government had instituted forfeiture proceedings involving funds held in accounts in the name of Tinubu and associated companies.

Atiku said the case involved federal forfeiture laws concerning assets allegedly connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

“The complaint stated that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering,” he said.

“A supporting sworn affidavit by an Internal Revenue Service criminal-investigation agent similarly stated that funds in accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were connected to drug-trafficking proceeds. The proceedings eventually resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the United States government.”

Atiku, however, acknowledged that he was not claiming that Tinubu was legally barred from entering the United States.

“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States. The Presidency has announced no such restriction,” he said.

He nevertheless questioned whether the President’s past American legal controversies had influenced his decision not to attend the UNGA personally since 2024.

“But if no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment exists, why has Tinubu repeatedly avoided the UNGA since 2024?” Atiku asked.

“Is he afraid of renewed scrutiny? Is he uncomfortable appearing on American soil amid continuing public interest in the narcotics drug related forfeiture proceedings? Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?”

Atiku also criticised what he described as a contrast between Tinubu’s domestic political posture and his international presence.

He questioned why the President had repeatedly stayed away from the UNGA while Nigeria continued to face security and economic challenges.

“Nigeria’s foreign standing has never been more miniaturised. Under Tinubu, the country rarely features prominently in continental leadership, the Commonwealth or world affairs,” Atiku said.

He also referenced the Nigerian government’s deployment of military personnel to Benin Republic following the December 2025 attempted coup, contrasting that action with Tinubu’s absence from the UN platform.

“Nigeria could project military power across its border, yet its President could not project Nigeria’s voice from its seat at the United Nations. That contradiction is humiliating,” he said.

Atiku called on the Presidency to state whether Tinubu was free to travel to the United States and explain the reason for his third consecutive absence from the UNGA.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Tinubu over his reported absence from the 81st United Nations General Assembly, describing it as his third consecutive absence from the annual gathering.

Atiku, in a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, said Tinubu was absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and the 81st in 2026, with Vice President Kashim Shettima representing Nigeria.

Atiku said the three consecutive absences required an explanation, particularly against the background of what he described as Tinubu’s documented history involving United States law-enforcement agencies.

“The United Nations General Assembly is one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings. It brings together the representatives of the UN’s 193 member states and provides a unique platform for presidents and prime ministers to defend their countries’ interests, negotiate partnerships and shape global decisions on trade, security and development,” Atiku said.

“Vice President Shettima may represent Nigeria capably, but representation by delegation cannot permanently substitute for the personal authority, visibility and responsibility of the President.

“Tinubu cannot continue to treat Nigeria’s seat at the world’s biggest diplomatic table as though it were an inconvenient appointment that can be endlessly outsourced.”

According to Atiku, the sidelines of the UNGA provide opportunities for leaders to hold bilateral meetings, attract investors, negotiate trade partnerships, mobilise development finance and advance their countries’ interests.

He argued that repeated presidential absence could affect Nigeria’s ability to take advantage of such opportunities.

“Presidential absence on the global stage has consequences. 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.

“When a President makes himself absent from that stage for three consecutive years, his country loses opportunities.”

Atiku further linked the issue to Nigeria’s economic challenges, arguing that reduced investment and capital inflows could have consequences for the economy and ordinary Nigerians.

“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs. Reduced capital inflows place additional pressure on the local currency. A weaker naira raises the cost of imports, production, transportation and food,” he said.

“These are among the economic pressures now punishing Nigerian families through the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.”

Atiku also questioned the reported arrangement by Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jimoh Ibrahim, to secure a seat for Tinubu near United States President Donald Trump.

“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.

“If proximity to President Trump was considered such a diplomatic achievement, why did Tinubu abandon the opportunity and send his deputy? Why celebrate securing a strategic seat for the President when the President had no intention of occupying it?”

He also raised questions about the reported expenditure of up to $9 million on American lobbyists by the Tinubu administration, asking what Nigerians gained from the engagement.

“That contradiction becomes even more scandalous when Nigerians remember that Tinubu’s administration committed up to $9 million of Nigeria’s scarce foreign exchange to American lobbyists supposedly hired to improve its standing before the government and people of the United States,” Atiku said.

“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money? Why spend millions of dollars lobbying Washington while Tinubu repeatedly stays away from New York?”

Atiku then connected Tinubu’s absence from the UNGA to controversies surrounding his past dealings in the United States.

He referenced Case No. 93 C 4483 before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, saying the United States government had instituted forfeiture proceedings involving funds held in accounts in the name of Tinubu and associated companies.

Atiku said the case involved federal forfeiture laws concerning assets allegedly connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

“The complaint stated that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering,” he said.

“A supporting sworn affidavit by an Internal Revenue Service criminal-investigation agent similarly stated that funds in accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were connected to drug-trafficking proceeds. The proceedings eventually resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the United States government.”

Atiku, however, acknowledged that he was not claiming that Tinubu was legally barred from entering the United States.

“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States. The Presidency has announced no such restriction,” he said.

He nevertheless questioned whether the President’s past American legal controversies had influenced his decision not to attend the UNGA personally since 2024.

“But if no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment exists, why has Tinubu repeatedly avoided the UNGA since 2024?” Atiku asked.

“Is he afraid of renewed scrutiny? Is he uncomfortable appearing on American soil amid continuing public interest in the narcotics drug related forfeiture proceedings? Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?”

Atiku also criticised what he described as a contrast between Tinubu’s domestic political posture and his international presence.

He questioned why the President had repeatedly stayed away from the UNGA while Nigeria continued to face security and economic challenges.

“Nigeria’s foreign standing has never been more miniaturised. Under Tinubu, the country rarely features prominently in continental leadership, the Commonwealth or world affairs,” Atiku said.

He also referenced the Nigerian government’s deployment of military personnel to Benin Republic following the December 2025 attempted coup, contrasting that action with Tinubu’s absence from the UN platform.

“Nigeria could project military power across its border, yet its President could not project Nigeria’s voice from its seat at the United Nations. That contradiction is humiliating,” he said.

Atiku called on the Presidency to state whether Tinubu was free to travel to the United States and explain the reason for his third consecutive absence from the UNGA.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Tinubu over his reported absence from the 81st United Nations General Assembly, describing it as his third consecutive absence from the annual gathering.

Atiku, in a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, said Tinubu was absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and the 81st in 2026, with Vice President Kashim Shettima representing Nigeria.

Atiku said the three consecutive absences required an explanation, particularly against the background of what he described as Tinubu’s documented history involving United States law-enforcement agencies.

“The United Nations General Assembly is one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings. It brings together the representatives of the UN’s 193 member states and provides a unique platform for presidents and prime ministers to defend their countries’ interests, negotiate partnerships and shape global decisions on trade, security and development,” Atiku said.

“Vice President Shettima may represent Nigeria capably, but representation by delegation cannot permanently substitute for the personal authority, visibility and responsibility of the President.

“Tinubu cannot continue to treat Nigeria’s seat at the world’s biggest diplomatic table as though it were an inconvenient appointment that can be endlessly outsourced.”

According to Atiku, the sidelines of the UNGA provide opportunities for leaders to hold bilateral meetings, attract investors, negotiate trade partnerships, mobilise development finance and advance their countries’ interests.

He argued that repeated presidential absence could affect Nigeria’s ability to take advantage of such opportunities.

“Presidential absence on the global stage has consequences. 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.

“When a President makes himself absent from that stage for three consecutive years, his country loses opportunities.”

Atiku further linked the issue to Nigeria’s economic challenges, arguing that reduced investment and capital inflows could have consequences for the economy and ordinary Nigerians.

“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs. Reduced capital inflows place additional pressure on the local currency. A weaker naira raises the cost of imports, production, transportation and food,” he said.

“These are among the economic pressures now punishing Nigerian families through the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.”

Atiku also questioned the reported arrangement by Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jimoh Ibrahim, to secure a seat for Tinubu near United States President Donald Trump.

“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.

“If proximity to President Trump was considered such a diplomatic achievement, why did Tinubu abandon the opportunity and send his deputy? Why celebrate securing a strategic seat for the President when the President had no intention of occupying it?”

He also raised questions about the reported expenditure of up to $9 million on American lobbyists by the Tinubu administration, asking what Nigerians gained from the engagement.

“That contradiction becomes even more scandalous when Nigerians remember that Tinubu’s administration committed up to $9 million of Nigeria’s scarce foreign exchange to American lobbyists supposedly hired to improve its standing before the government and people of the United States,” Atiku said.

“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money? Why spend millions of dollars lobbying Washington while Tinubu repeatedly stays away from New York?”

Atiku then connected Tinubu’s absence from the UNGA to controversies surrounding his past dealings in the United States.

He referenced Case No. 93 C 4483 before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, saying the United States government had instituted forfeiture proceedings involving funds held in accounts in the name of Tinubu and associated companies.

Atiku said the case involved federal forfeiture laws concerning assets allegedly connected to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

“The complaint stated that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering,” he said.

“A supporting sworn affidavit by an Internal Revenue Service criminal-investigation agent similarly stated that funds in accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were connected to drug-trafficking proceeds. The proceedings eventually resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the United States government.”

Atiku, however, acknowledged that he was not claiming that Tinubu was legally barred from entering the United States.

“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States. The Presidency has announced no such restriction,” he said.

He nevertheless questioned whether the President’s past American legal controversies had influenced his decision not to attend the UNGA personally since 2024.

“But if no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment exists, why has Tinubu repeatedly avoided the UNGA since 2024?” Atiku asked.

“Is he afraid of renewed scrutiny? Is he uncomfortable appearing on American soil amid continuing public interest in the narcotics drug related forfeiture proceedings? Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?”

Atiku also criticised what he described as a contrast between Tinubu’s domestic political posture and his international presence.

He questioned why the President had repeatedly stayed away from the UNGA while Nigeria continued to face security and economic challenges.

“Nigeria’s foreign standing has never been more miniaturised. Under Tinubu, the country rarely features prominently in continental leadership, the Commonwealth or world affairs,” Atiku said.

He also referenced the Nigerian government’s deployment of military personnel to Benin Republic following the December 2025 attempted coup, contrasting that action with Tinubu’s absence from the UN platform.

“Nigeria could project military power across its border, yet its President could not project Nigeria’s voice from its seat at the United Nations. That contradiction is humiliating,” he said.

Atiku called on the Presidency to state whether Tinubu was free to travel to the United States and explain the reason for his third consecutive absence from the UNGA.