Leadership is not simply about occupying an office or attending international summits. It demands full-time commitment, accountability, and most importantly, presence. A president cannot govern effectively from the luxury of a European hotel room while his people face daily crises back home. A governor cannot lead from afar while insecurity escalates within their state. Legislators cannot represent their constituents’ interests from conference centres abroad.
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
There was a time in Nigeria’s recent history when foreign travel by public office holders was undertaken with a clear sense of purpose, strategic intent, and a profound sense of responsibility to the nation. Foreign trips by presidents, governors, or legislators were not occasions for personal leisure or convenient escapes from the weight of governance. Instead, they were necessitated by national interest—whether to secure foreign investment, foster diplomatic relations, attract development aid, or restore Nigeria’s standing on the world stage. Such journeys were meticulously planned, transparently communicated, and accompanied by well-defined objectives.
In the early years of the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency, this approach was evident. Emerging from decades of military rule and international isolation, Nigeria was viewed with suspicion and caution by many in the global community. Obasanjo embarked on what he called “shuttle diplomacy,” a deliberate and concerted effort to re-engage Nigeria with the rest of the world. Over the course of his two terms, he visited nearly 100 countries, not as a matter of indulgence, but as part of a calculated effort to secure debt relief, attract foreign investment, and rebuild the nation’s tarnished reputation.
Though some critics questioned the frequency of his travels, it was clear that these trips were part of a national project. Each visit was accompanied by tangible goals, and importantly, each return was marked by a reportable result. The strategy was simple: Nigeria needed to be present on the global stage to be taken seriously, and it needed to earn back trust and goodwill. There was also a deep understanding that while the president was abroad, governance at home could not be put on hold. Formal power transfers and institutional continuity were observed as part of constitutional duty.
READ ALSO:
The question Tinubu’s government must answer
Today, however, we find ourselves confronting a troubling departure from this tradition of purposeful leadership. Instead, what we now observe is a pervasive culture of absenteeism among Nigeria’s political elite—a culture where foreign trips are undertaken with questionable justification, scant transparency, and no visible benefit to the citizenry.
Most recently, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s extended ten-day “working holiday” in Europe drew significant public criticism. This absence came at a time when Nigeria is grappling with an array of serious socio-economic challenges: inflation reaching unprecedented levels, fuel shortages causing widespread disruption, increasing insecurity across many states, and a general erosion of public confidence in governance. Such a protracted absence, regardless of its justification, sends a disheartening signal to Nigerians struggling at home.
Yet, this trend is hardly unique to the current administration. It is worth recalling that Tinubu’s immediate predecessor, President Muhammadu Buhari, frequently spent prolonged periods abroad on medical trips and holidays. While it is understandable that health concerns require attention, Buhari’s absence became a source of national anxiety because it was often unclear who was in charge. The Nigerian Constitution under Section 145 mandates that whenever the President is unable to perform the functions of his office, he must formally transmit power to the Vice President by written notification to the National Assembly.
Regrettably, Buhari complied with this constitutional requirement only once during his entire tenure—in August 2017, when he handed over power to Vice President Yemi Osinbajo during a medical trip. For the rest of his time in office, he frequently left the country without formally delegating authority, creating a constitutional ambiguity that undermined governance and eroded public trust. This absence not only stalled critical decision-making at crucial moments but also set a dangerous precedent, normalising leadership by absence and constitutional laxity.
The implications of this are profound. When the highest office in the land is effectively unattended to for prolonged periods, it creates a governance vacuum that breeds uncertainty. It diminishes institutional effectiveness and leaves citizens questioning the very legitimacy of their leaders. It also weakens the rule of law, as constitutional provisions meant to ensure continuity of power are ignored with impunity.
Unfortunately, this pattern of absenteeism is not confined to the presidency. State governors—charged with the responsibility of leading at the grassroots—have increasingly adopted similar habits. It has become commonplace to see governors jetting off for lengthy “investment drives,” “healthcare visits,” or “international conferences,” often without adequate communication or accountability to their constituents. In many cases, these absences come at moments when their states are facing serious crises—security challenges escalate, pensions to retired civil servants go unpaid for months, public infrastructure crumbles, and essential services falter.
What is particularly disconcerting is the frequent failure to constitutionally delegate power during these absences. The Nigerian Constitution clearly provides mechanisms for governors to hand over their responsibilities temporarily to deputy governors when unavailable. Yet, numerous reports indicate that many governors routinely neglect this requirement, leaving their states effectively leaderless for days or even weeks.
This absence is not merely a question of physical presence—it has very real consequences on governance. When the chief executive is absent, decision-making slows down or halts altogether. Critical issues remain unaddressed. The morale of public servants and security agencies diminishes. And citizens, feeling abandoned, grow increasingly disillusioned.
Equally troubling is the conduct of some members of the National Assembly. While legislative duties demand rigorous engagement, some lawmakers have seemingly turned foreign trips into perks of office. These trips—variously described as retreats, seminars, or oversight visits—are undertaken frequently and at great public expense. Unfortunately, the outcomes of these trips are rarely made public, and their direct benefits to constituents remain unclear. Worse still, these absences often coincide with important national debates, legislative votes, or oversight duties, raising questions about the prioritisation of personal or political gain over national service.
It is crucial to emphasise that international exposure and diplomatic engagement remain important facets of modern governance. Nigeria must maintain and deepen its global relationships to attract investment, collaborate on security, and participate in international decision-making. However, such engagement must be balanced with constitutional adherence, transparency, and, above all, a demonstrated return on investment for Nigerians.
Leadership is not simply about occupying an office or attending international summits. It demands full-time commitment, accountability, and most importantly, presence. A president cannot govern effectively from the luxury of a European hotel room while his people face daily crises back home. A governor cannot lead from afar while insecurity escalates within their state. Legislators cannot represent their constituents’ interests from conference centres abroad.
There is also a deeper symbolic dimension to this absenteeism. When leaders are physically and emotionally detached from their people, it sends a disheartening message: that the lives and struggles of ordinary Nigerians are of lesser concern. This perception deepens the trust deficit between the government and its citizens, weakening the foundations of democracy.
The Nigerian people are neither unreasonable nor unappreciative of the demands of public office. They understand the necessity of foreign trips and the health needs of their leaders. But they rightly expect these trips to be transparent, justified, and limited. More importantly, they expect their leaders to be physically present, accessible, and responsive to the realities on the ground.
This requires a fundamental shift in mindset. Proximity to the people should not be viewed as a burden or inconvenience; rather, it is a critical strength of effective leadership. Leaders must once again make it a priority to walk the markets, visit schools and hospitals unannounced, engage with farmers, traders, and the unemployed, and hold honest dialogues with citizens. Only through such engagement can policies be truly responsive and governance regain legitimacy.
For too long, Nigeria has suffered under the weight of leadership that retreats when presence is most needed. Absentee leadership erodes institutions, weakens democracy, and prolongs the nation’s challenges. It is time to draw a clear line between necessary diplomatic engagement and a culture of executive aloofness.
Nigeria is not a remote job. It demands leaders who are here—not only in name but in presence, in spirit, and in action. It demands accountability and a renewed commitment to the people who placed them in office. Only when this happens can Nigeria begin the difficult, but essential, task of rebuilding trust, restoring legitimacy, and steering the country toward a more hopeful future.
