Connect with us

News

Our Tinubu Has Run Away Again?

Published

on

Our Tinubu Has Run Away Again?

 

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to embark on a three-week vacation abroad has triggered renewed debate over his foreign travels, with opposition politicians, civil society activists and concerned Nigerians questioning the timing of his latest absence from the country.

 

Tinubu left Abuja on Sunday, August 30, 2026, for Europe to begin what the Presidency described as his annual leave.

 

According to a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the President’s first destination was London, United Kingdom.

 

The statement said Tinubu would use the period for a working vacation and return to Nigeria after the three-week break to participate in the activities leading to the 2027 general elections.

 

However, the announcement came at a politically sensitive period, with Nigeria facing renewed security concerns, economic pressures and an increasingly competitive political environment ahead of the 2027 elections.

 

The timing has consequently revived questions that have followed the President throughout his administration: How often has Tinubu travelled abroad since assuming office, how much time has he spent outside Nigeria and have the trips produced sufficient benefits to justify the criticisms surrounding them?

 

51 foreign trips in three years

 

Tinubu’s foreign travel record has become a recurring subject of public debate since he assumed office on May 29, 2023.

 

A Sunday PUNCH investigation published in May 2026 reported that Tinubu had embarked on 51 foreign trips during his first three years in office, spending about 261 days outside Nigeria and visiting at least 30 countries.

 

The investigation was based on officially announced presidential trips and available flight information.

 

The report also showed that Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima had collectively spent 344 days abroad during the first three years of the administration.

 

Earlier, another Sunday PUNCH analysis reported that the President and his deputy had spent 315 days outside the country in 69 trips across 35 countries within the first 33 months of the administration.

 

The figures have generated contrasting interpretations.

 

While critics have described the frequency of the travels as excessive, the Presidency has maintained that Tinubu’s international engagements are designed to promote Nigeria’s economic interests, attract foreign investment, strengthen bilateral relations and enhance the country’s diplomatic standing.

 

The administration has repeatedly argued that presidential diplomacy cannot be conducted exclusively from Abuja.

 

Why the latest trip is different

 

The controversy surrounding the latest trip, however, is largely about timing.

 

Tinubu’s departure came barely days after a major security crisis in Niger State, where hundreds of people were reportedly abducted in a mass kidnapping incident.

 

The incident renewed concerns about the worsening kidnapping epidemic across the country and the ability of security agencies to protect vulnerable communities.

 

A recent report by SBM Intelligence, cited by Reuters, estimated that 7,825 Nigerians were kidnapped between July 2025 and June 2026.

 

The report also estimated that 1,142 people were killed during the period and that kidnappers collected about $5.79m in ransom payments.

 

The figures underline the scale of the security challenge confronting the administration as Tinubu begins preparations for a second-term campaign.

 

For critics, the President’s decision to spend three weeks abroad against that backdrop sends the wrong message.

 

Atiku attacks President

 

Atiku Abubakar, the NDC presidential candidate, was among those who criticised the decision.

 

Atiku argued that the President’s absence was inappropriate at a time when Nigerians were contending with worsening insecurity and economic hardship.

 

The former Vice-President said the issue was not whether Tinubu was entitled to a holiday but whether such a lengthy foreign vacation was appropriate given the challenges facing the country.

 

He accused the President of abandoning a nation facing serious problems and described Nigeria as being in crisis.

 

The criticism was particularly significant because Atiku is one of the leading opposition politicians positioning himself for the 2027 presidential contest.

 

Activists join debate

 

Civil society activists have also questioned aspects of the administration’s leadership and the President’s foreign travels.

 

Human rights lawyer and activist Deji Adeyanju has been particularly vocal on issues of insecurity, governance and the welfare of Nigerians.

 

Adeyanju recently criticised the Federal Government over the security situation and flooding concerns in Abuja, urging the administration to demonstrate stronger leadership.

 

Another prominent activist, Aisha Yesufu, has previously criticised Tinubu over his foreign travels and the priorities of the administration.

 

Their interventions have contributed to a broader civil society argument that political leaders should remain more closely connected to the realities confronting ordinary Nigerians.

 

For many activists, the central issue is not the President’s constitutional right to take leave but the perception created when a President spends an extended period abroad while citizens at home confront insecurity, unemployment and rising living costs.

 

Presidency defends travels

 

The Presidency has consistently rejected the suggestion that Tinubu’s foreign trips amount to unnecessary journeys.

 

Government officials have repeatedly said the President’s travels are driven by national interests.

 

Tinubu has attended several high-level international meetings since assuming office, including engagements with global leaders, investors and international institutions.

 

His March 2026 state visit to the United Kingdom was particularly significant, being the first state visit by a Nigerian President to Britain since 1989.

 

The administration has also cited investment agreements and diplomatic engagements arising from Tinubu’s international trips as evidence that the journeys serve national objectives.

 

Former presidential spokesman Reuben Abati also recently defended Tinubu’s right to travel, arguing that the President was entitled to travel anywhere and that the criticism of his movement risked becoming excessive.

 

But Nigerians want results

 

Despite the official defence, the controversy has refused to disappear.

 

For ordinary Nigerians, the question is increasingly about the relationship between presidential travels and tangible improvements in their daily lives.

 

The President came into office promising to undertake bold economic reforms.

 

His administration removed the petrol subsidy and liberalised the foreign exchange market, arguing that the measures were necessary to address structural weaknesses in the economy.

 

While the government has highlighted improved macroeconomic indicators and increased investor confidence, Nigerians continue to complain about high food prices, transportation costs, electricity tariffs, housing expenses and declining purchasing power.

 

The World Bank and other international institutions have acknowledged some improvements in Nigeria’s macroeconomic position while also warning about the continuing impact of inflation and poverty on households.

 

This disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and household realities has become one of the administration’s biggest political vulnerabilities.

 

The cost of presidential travel

 

The financial cost of presidential movements has also featured prominently in the debate.

 

A recent report put Presidency travel-related expenditure between June 2023 and April 2026 at N37.64bn.

 

The figure has attracted criticism from Nigerians who argue that public resources should be deployed more aggressively towards security, healthcare, education, infrastructure and poverty reduction.

 

Government officials, however, have not accepted the argument that the expenditure should be viewed simply as waste.

 

Presidential movements require security, logistics, aircraft operations, accommodation and diplomatic arrangements, while some trips involve large official delegations.

 

The question therefore remains whether the expenditure produces commensurate economic and diplomatic returns.

 

Leave is constitutional

 

Legally, there is little controversy over the President proceeding on annual leave.

 

Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the President to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives when proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge his functions.

 

The Vice-President then performs the functions of President in an acting capacity until the President resumes those functions.

 

Thus, Nigeria’s constitutional system does not require the President to remain physically within the country throughout his tenure.

 

The argument against Tinubu’s latest trip is therefore not fundamentally a constitutional one. It is political.

 

The 2027 factor

 

The timing of the vacation also has significance because Nigeria has effectively entered the 2027 political cycle.

 

The Independent National Electoral Commission lifted the ban on political campaigns on August 19, paving the way for open mobilisation by political parties and candidates.

 

Tinubu’s administration will now face increasing scrutiny over its record as opposition parties seek to turn insecurity, economic hardship and governance into major campaign issues.

 

The President’s supporters are expected to highlight what they describe as the administration’s economic reforms, infrastructure projects, increased revenue generation and efforts to reposition Nigeria.

 

The opposition, meanwhile, is likely to focus on insecurity, poverty, unemployment, inflation and the cost of governance.

 

Tinubu’s foreign travels could therefore become part of the opposition’s wider campaign narrative.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Diplomacy

CARICOM, Türkiye explore cooperation in trade, energy, food security

Published

on

CARICOM, Türkiye explore cooperation in trade, energy, food security

 

The Caribbean Community, CARICOM and the Republic of Türkiye have explored opportunities to strengthen cooperation in trade, investment, food security, renewable energy, disaster management and maritime connectivity.

 

The two sides also identified health, port development and climate resilience as priority areas for deeper engagement during the second meeting of the CARICOM-Republic of Türkiye Consultation and Cooperation Mechanism held on October 12, 2026.

 

According to a joint press release, the meeting reaffirmed both parties’ commitment to strengthening political dialogue and advancing practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest.

 

The meeting was co-chaired by the Permanent Secretary in Suriname’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Business and Cooperation, Ambassador Miriam Mac Intosh, and Türkiye’s Director-General for Latin America and the Caribbean in its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Erkan Aytun.

 

Mac Intosh, who represents the current chair of the CARICOM Council for Foreign and Community Relations, said the partnership was founded on constructive dialogue, mutual respect and a shared commitment to development.

 

She commended Türkiye for its support for development projects and humanitarian assistance across the Caribbean, noting that the contributions had delivered tangible benefits to the region.

 

“We remain committed to identifying and advancing further initiatives that contribute to the Region’s resilience and sustainable development,” she said.

 

Convened under a memorandum of understanding signed in 2011, the meeting reviewed developments in relations between the two parties and examined opportunities to expand cooperation.

 

High-level officials from CARICOM member states presented practical proposals covering trade and investment, disaster management, food security, renewable energy, health, maritime connectivity and port development.

 

Representatives of Turkish institutions also outlined how their technical expertise, technology and institutional capacity could support the priorities of Caribbean countries.

 

The discussions further examined preparations for the 31st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, known as COP31, scheduled to take place in Antalya, Türkiye, from November 9 to 20, 2026.

 

Türkiye, which will preside over the conference, presented its strategic priorities and preparations for the global climate summit.

 

Aytun said the country wanted COP31 to focus on implementing climate commitments, following consultations with participating countries and other stakeholders.

 

“We need to make COP31 an implementation COP,” he said.

 

He identified 10 priority themes for the climate action agenda, including clean energy transition and electrification, zero waste and methane reduction, climate-resilient cities, green industrialisation, youth and education, food security, oceans and seas, resilient health systems, synergies among the Rio conventions and a climate implementation bridge.

 

CARICOM and Türkiye have expanded their engagement over the years through development cooperation, humanitarian assistance and support for regional initiatives.

 

Recent areas of cooperation include contributions to Caribbean disaster recovery efforts, support for the Caribbean Development Fund and assistance in strengthening the CARICOM Secretariat’s information and communications infrastructure.

Continue Reading

News

Britain restricts Eritrean diplomats, threatens entry ban

Published

on

Britain restricts Eritrean diplomats, threatens entry ban

 

The United Kingdom has threatened to impose a blanket entry ban on Eritrean nationals if the East African country fails to cooperate with efforts to return migrants who have no legal right to remain in Britain and foreign nationals convicted of crimes.

 

The UK Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced the proposed measures amid growing tensions between both countries over migration and the repatriation of Eritrean nationals.

 

From Thursday, Eritrean diplomats will face restrictions on their movements outside London, while fast-track visa arrangements for senior officials will be suspended.

 

Mahmood warned that the British government could introduce further restrictions if Eritrean authorities continued to reject its requests for cooperation.

 

“Eritrea has had every chance to accept the return of criminals and those with no right to be in the UK. Unlike other countries, it has refused,” she said.

 

She added that she would not hesitate “to impose further measures on other countries refusing to co-operate”.

 

The British government accused Eritrea of abruptly withdrawing cooperation earlier this year, making it difficult to return nationals who had been denied permission to remain in the UK.

 

However, Eritrea’s government rejected the allegations, describing the restrictions as a “perfunctory political gimmick”.

 

The Eritrean embassy in London also accused Britain of failing to engage in meaningful dialogue and alleged that British authorities had not properly disclosed cases involving nationals who were returned while still serving prison sentences.

 

It further disputed Britain’s description of some returns as voluntary, arguing that the circumstances did not support that characterisation.

 

A UK Home Office spokesperson dismissed the criticism, saying Eritrea’s comments misrepresented the British government’s position.

 

The Home Office also said Britain had granted an exemption from immigration control to an Eritrean official in August 2026, disputing claims that no Eritrean official had received such an exemption since 2023.

 

The proposed restrictions come as Eritreans account for a significant proportion of migrants arriving in Britain through irregular Channel crossings.

 

Figures from the House of Commons Library show that Eritreans represented 18 per cent of small-boat arrivals in the 12 months to June.

 

Home Office data indicated that more than 5,800 Eritreans arrived in Britain through small boats during the same period, while approximately 1,300 were granted visas, mostly to join relatives already living in the country.

 

Only seven Eritrean nationals were returned directly to Eritrea from Britain during the 12 months to June, while another 244 were returned to other countries.

 

The figures have raised questions about the likely effectiveness of the proposed restrictions in reducing irregular migration.

 

Dr Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said targeting Eritrea could have limited impact because most Eritreans seeking asylum in Britain were likely to qualify for international protection.

 

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Eritrea accounted for approximately 7,000 asylum applications in the latest year of available data, representing about eight per cent of the total.

 

“Most Eritreans who come and claim asylum are not removable at all,” she said, adding that about 84 per cent of applications were successful at the initial decision stage, with further applicants potentially succeeding on appeal.

 

Sumption said the number of people initially refused asylum would decline as appeals were considered.

 

Eritrea has faced longstanding international criticism over its human rights record, including allegations of forced labour, indefinite military conscription and restrictions on freedom of expression.

 

The country, which gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993, has never held a national election since independence and has no independent media.

 

Human Rights Watch has accused the government of widespread repression, while critics of President Isaias Afwerki have faced arrest and prolonged detention, often without trial.

 

Indefinite military service has also been cited as a major reason young Eritreans leave the country.

Continue Reading

News

Zelenskyy seeks European support as Trump tensions deepen

Published

on

Zelensky: Trump Would Be Hard Work, But We Are Hard Workers

Zelenskyy seeks European support as Trump tensions deepen

 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has praised European leaders for their continued support for Kyiv as tensions with United States President Donald Trump threaten to complicate efforts to secure further assistance for Ukraine.

 

Zelenskyy made the remarks on Friday during a European summit in Brussels, where leaders were discussing support for Ukraine amid its continuing war with Russia.

 

“I’m so thankful that we have such huge support from EU Council Commission and leaders – real leaders,” he said, acknowledging Europe’s backing since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

 

His comments came amid renewed concerns over Ukraine’s military communications following restrictions on SpaceX’s Starlink satellite service, which Ukrainian forces rely on for battlefield connectivity.

 

Ukraine’s First Deputy Minister for Recovery, Infrastructure and Transport, Serhiy Derkach, warned that restrictions on the service could create additional difficulties for the country’s defence efforts.

 

“With U.S. limiting the use of Starlinks on the battlefield, Russia feels that this is their moment to try and inflict even more pain and suffering on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure,” Derkach told CNBC on Friday.

 

He added that Ukraine was approaching what could be a particularly difficult period and needed support from its international partners.

 

The development comes as Zelenskyy reportedly faces pressure from some European officials to moderate his public criticism of Trump in order to preserve cooperation with Washington.

 

Three officials familiar with preparations for the Brussels summit told the Financial Times that they planned to privately urge the Ukrainian president to tone down his rhetoric during their meeting.

 

Politico also reported concerns among some European leaders about Zelenskyy’s handling of his strained relationship with the US president.

 

One European Union diplomat was quoted as describing the Ukrainian leader’s public criticism of Trump as “not helpful”.

 

Despite the tensions, Zelenskyy insisted that Ukraine remained committed to ending the war but said there were no indications that Russia was ready to do the same.

 

“We want to end this war as quick as possible. We don’t see now signals from Russia side that they are ready for this to end this war,” he told reporters in Brussels.

 

The Ukrainian president’s comments followed his criticism of Russia over its alleged failure to respect an energy ceasefire announced by Trump.

 

Trump had announced the proposed arrangement the previous week, saying Russia and Ukraine had agreed to stop attacking each other’s energy infrastructure.

 

The initiative was presented as an attempt to reduce attacks on critical infrastructure and ease pressure on energy markets ahead of the US midterm elections in November.

 

Zelenskyy subsequently said Ukraine had refrained from striking Russian energy targets for three days in response to Washington’s proposal.

 

However, he described the arrangement concerning Russia’s energy-related commitments as weak.

 

Moscow has not confirmed that it agreed to an energy ceasefire, saying only that discussions were ongoing.

 

Russian authorities had not responded to multiple requests for comment from CNBC at the time of the report.

 

The dispute highlights the challenges facing diplomatic efforts to reduce hostilities, particularly as Ukraine continues to depend on Western military, financial and technological assistance.

 

European governments have maintained support for Kyiv, but concerns over the relationship between Zelenskyy and Trump have raised questions about how differences between Ukraine and its most influential partners could affect the wider war effort.

Continue Reading

Trending