Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned President Bola Tinubu’s decision to stay away from the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, asking whether the Nigerian leader fears becoming the next Nicolás Maduro.
Atiku raised the question while demanding an explanation for Tinubu’s repeated absence from the UN gathering.
He made the demand in a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.
According to Atiku, Tinubu did not attend the 79th UN General Assembly in 2024 or the 80th session in 2025 and has again stayed away from the 81st session in 2026, with Vice President Kashim Shettima representing Nigeria.
Atiku said the repeated absence had become a pattern that required a clear explanation rather than being treated as a normal delegation arrangement.
He argued that the annual UN gathering provides world leaders with opportunities to promote national interests, meet foreign leaders, attract investment, negotiate partnerships and discuss security, trade and development.
Atiku said the Vice President could represent Nigeria, but argued that repeated delegation could not fully replace the visibility and authority of the President at a major international gathering.
He also linked Tinubu’s absence to Nigeria’s economic interests, arguing that meetings held around the UN General Assembly can provide opportunities for investment discussions, development financing and international business partnerships.
Atiku said prolonged presidential absence could therefore have diplomatic and economic consequences for Nigeria, particularly at a time when Nigerians are facing significant economic pressures.
Atiku Questions Seat Near Trump
A major part of Atiku’s statement concerned a reported effort by Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, to secure a seat for Tinubu close to United States President Donald Trump.
Atiku questioned why such an arrangement would be secured if the President was not going to attend the session.
He argued that the reported effort showed that the Nigerian government considered Tinubu’s presence strategically important, while the President’s eventual absence raised questions about the purpose of securing the seat.
$9 Million Lobbying Deal Raised Again
Atiku also connected Tinubu’s absence to reports that Nigeria had committed up to $9 million to lobbyists in the United States.
Reports published in January 2026 said the Federal Government had entered into a $9 million United States lobbying arrangement aimed at advancing Nigeria’s interests and managing the country’s image in Washington.
Atiku questioned the value of the spending, asking why Nigeria would spend millions of dollars on lobbying in the United States while the President repeatedly stayed away from the UN gathering in New York.
He argued that Nigerians deserved greater transparency about the purpose and results of the expenditure.
Atiku Raises Tinubu’s 1993 US Forfeiture Case
Atiku also raised Tinubu’s historical legal proceedings in the United States, referring to case number 93 C 4483 before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Court records from the 1993 proceedings show that United States authorities filed a civil forfeiture case involving funds held in accounts in the name of Bola Tinubu and associated entities.
The court records state that the United States alleged there was probable cause to believe some of the funds were proceeds of narcotics trafficking or involved in financial transactions that violated federal money laundering laws. The case was resolved through a settlement, and $460,000 from an account held in Tinubu’s name was subsequently forfeited to the United States.
The matter was a civil forfeiture proceeding concerning money and property. It was not a criminal conviction of Tinubu for a narcotics offence. Recent reporting on the historical case has also highlighted this distinction.
Atiku argued that the history was relevant to questions surrounding Tinubu’s repeated absence from official events in the United States.
He asked whether the President faced any legal, diplomatic, medical or personal restriction preventing him from travelling to the United States.
Atiku also acknowledged that there had been no public announcement from the Presidency stating that Tinubu was legally barred from entering the country.
Questions Over Nigeria’s Global Role
Atiku further criticised what he described as a reduction in Nigeria’s international visibility under Tinubu.
He pointed to Nigeria’s involvement in regional security operations while arguing that the country also needed strong presidential representation at major international diplomatic forums.
His statement referred to Nigeria’s reported deployment of military personnel and aircraft to Benin Republic following the attempted coup in December 2025 and contrasted that action with Tinubu’s absence from the UN platform.
Atiku argued that Nigeria should be able to project its interests both through regional security actions and through direct presidential diplomacy.
Presidency Asked to Explain Absence
Atiku ultimately demanded that the Presidency clearly state whether Tinubu is free to travel to the United States and explain why he has not personally attended the UN General Assembly since 2023.
He said that if there was an impediment to Tinubu’s attendance, Nigerians deserved to know about it, while an absence of any impediment should be followed by an explanation for the repeated decision to send the Vice President instead.
