President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to skip the ongoing 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, the third such abstention in a row, has raised eyebrows and sparked speculations.
Expectedly, opposition politicians have wasted no time in feasting on the official announcement that the vice-president, Kashim Shettima, will, once again, stand in for the president.
Also read: Presidency replies Atiku, Obi: Tinubu can rule from anywhere
This trumps an earlier announcement by Jimoh Ibrahim, the country’s Ambassador to the United States/Permanent Representative to the United Nations, that not only would the president attend the annual meeting of world leaders at the UN headquarters in New York, USA, but that a vantage position had been secured for him to sit very close to the maverick United States’ president, Donald Trump!
Since he assumed the country’s leadership in 2023, Tinubu has yet to attend a single UNGA meeting; so also has he yet to pay either official or private visit to the United States despite that he has reportedly embarked, so far, on 52 foreign trips. He has visited at least 30 different countries across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, spending approximately 261 days.
As we speak, the president is out of the country on holidays, first to the UK after which he is expected in France. So, is there anything that aileth Tinubu about the United States? That is where the speculation begins; however, it does not end there!
Is President Tinubu deliberately avoiding the United States? Has it got anything to do with the unending controversy and legal battles over the FBI files and Tinubu’s past activities in the United States? He schooled there; he also worked there before returning to Nigeria decades back.
During the giddy days of the Sani Abacha military dictatorship, the US provided succour and a safe haven for Tinubu and many other pro-democracy activists. What has since changed is the question to ask if the suspicion is that the president is deliberately avoiding the United States.
Or has it got anything to do with the unpredictability of President Trump and the activities of anti-Tinubu politicians here at home and the paid groups doing their bidding in the US? Who dare put anything beyond a president that organized the storming, arrest, and rendition of a sitting foreign leader, hauling him and his wife to the US for trial on drug-related charges, with the country of the leader concerned and the international community as a whole helpless to do anything about it! “What if” then becomes the question should Tinubu set foot on US soil! Is it not better, then, to err on the side of caution?
Another school of thought is that Tinubu’s health might need attention. Unlike in much of the Western world, the secrecy that surrounds the health conditions of Nigerian, nay, African leaders makes it difficult to speak authoritatively on their health conditions.
And this is not new. Babangida, Abacha, Abdulsalami, Yar’Adua all had rumours swirling around their health conditions while in office. Abacha and Yar’Adua died in office. Buhari spent close to one-third of his tenure shuttling between the country and his doctors in the UK. It has been said, this time around, that Tinubu’s doctors are in France.
With part of his holiday reportedly scheduled to be spent in Charles de Gaulle’s country, could this holiday be another disguised medical tourism? Health is wealth, as they say, and prioritizing one’s health and wellbeing over and above a meeting, no matter how important, can be justified, especially when we have been told that the president can be (adequately?) represented at the UNGA.
Then I asked Google: Is it compulsory that the president lead his country’s delegation to the UNGA? The answer is: No, it is not compulsory for a president or prime minister to lead their country’s delegation to the UNGA.
Alternatively, the president or prime minister can be represented by the vice president or deputy prime minister, the foreign affairs minister or the country’s permanent representative at the UN who can speak, vote and act on behalf of the country or member-state concerned.
History records that many world leaders have frequently failed to personally attend UNGA due to divergent reasons, such as pressing domestic issues, disasters or local crises needing their personal attention or for health reasons.
Super-power rivalry and politics, and the need to remain non-committal or stay neutral from taking sides on volatile issues have also been known to compel foreign leaders to skip personally attending UNGA.
When a country’s leader attends the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in person, it provides several distinct strategic, diplomatic, and political advantages that cannot be replicated through virtual participation or lower-level delegation.
Some of these advantages are: High-level bilateral diplomacy (the “Margin” meetings); spontaneous networking whereby leaders hold informal, face-to-face meetings on the sidelines (the “margins”) of the assembly, allowing them to resolve disputes or advance treaties quickly.
It also affords the opportunity of building rapport. Personal presence helps build trust and personal relationships between heads of state, which can be critical during international crises.
Other advantages include enhanced global visibility and influence as UNGA gives leaders a global or world stage to operate from.
A speech delivered in person by a head of state commands significantly more international media attention and diplomatic weight than a pre-recorded video or speech read by a representative.
Some world leaders have been noted for setting agendas on issues of national, regional or international importance at UNGA. Leaders can directly pitch their nation’s foreign policy priorities, economic opportunities, or security concerns to a global audience.
Personal attendance at UNGA also helps to facilitate efficient multilateral engagement or what is called “mini-Summits” among leaders.
Leaders can participate in localized, high-level side events or regional summits (such as G7, BRICS, or regional blocs like the EU and the African Union) that have been known to convene in New York during the UNGA week. When leaders attend UNGA in person, direct access to decision-makers is made possible.
Smaller or developing nations also can seize the opportunity to have direct, unmediated access to leaders of superpower nations as well as heads of major international organizations like the UN itself, the World Bank and IMF. We can go on and on!
At the level of individual nations, attending UNGA is said to project an image of strength, global respect, and statesmanship to citizens back at home.
Newly-elected leaders especially use UNGA to announce themselves to the international community to garner support and recognition, to state their goals and set agendas as well as make profound statements on their administration’s foreign policy direction.
UNGA also serves as a formal introduction to the international community and signals the leader’s commitment to global cooperation.
From the above, it is, without doubt, a disadvantage when leaders absent themselves from UNGA. No matter how “powerful” a substitute representation is, it cannot be the same as when the president or prime minister of a country leads it.
There is what is called “bragging rights” among leaders. Presidents prefer to deal with presidents; vice presidents or foreign ministers will be shuffled down the ladder to discuss with their equivalents or counterparts.
The reverse is the case, however, where presidents of less powerful countries queue or consider it a privilege to have an audience with the foreign affairs minister or envoy of powerful countries such as the US, China, Russia, etc.
One narrative for Tinubu’s recurring absence at UNGA being spinned by his detractors is the fear of the unknown over the FBI files and Tinubu’s alleged past encounter with the US judicial system.
But a man, once tried and acquitted of criminal charges, cannot be tried again on the same offence except fresh evidence pops up that possesses the likelihood of affecting the outcome of the trial in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, can any harm come the way of a visiting president attending UNGA? Or, put more directly and blatantly, can a foreign leader attending UNGA in New York, USA be arrested for any reason whatsoever by the US authorities? The answer is, no; leaders attending UNGA cannot be arrested, charged or tried in the US because they enjoy immunity.
Under the UN Headquarters Agreement, the United States has an international obligation to allow accredited representatives entry and transit to the UN as well as respect their diplomatic inviolability.
In like manner, no US state, city, local government or county official possesses the legal power to arrest a protected visiting foreign leader.
From the above, it is most unlikely that President Tinubu stands the risk of being arrested in the US if he chooses to personally attend UNGA.
What may happen is that demonstrators may mass at the UN headquarters venue of UNGA, organize protests and heckle him and his delegation.
That will be embarrassing enough. For sure, it will portray the country in bad light and dent its image – which all Nigerians, including the president’s adversaries, will suffer from.
Also read: Presidency replies Atiku, Obi: Tinubu can rule from anywhere
To avoid such an embarrassment and the deleterious effects it may have on the country’s image appears as the most germane reason why Tinubu has kept away – and may continue to keep sway – from UNGA until, maybe, a more predictable president mounts the saddle in the United States. And the losers? – Nigeria and Nigerians!
(Published in the TREASURES column on the back page of the NEW TELEGRAPH newspaper edition of Wednesday, 23 September, 2026).
Former Editor of PUNCH newspapers, Chairman of its Editorial Board and Deputy Editor-in-Chief, BOLAWOLE was also the Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief of THE WESTERNER c TRIBUNE and TREASURES column in the NEW TELEGRAPH newspaper on Wednesdays. He is also a public affairs analyst on radio and television.
