Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim, has defended President Bola Tinubu’s decision not to attend the high-level segment of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, saying the President’s absence did not diminish Nigeria’s position at the global gathering.
Ibrahim made the clarification on Tuesday during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today, where he argued that Nigeria was adequately represented by Vice President Kashim Shettima, who led the country’s delegation and delivered Nigeria’s national statement.
According to the ambassador, more than 60 per cent of officials scheduled to address the General Assembly were represented by vice presidents or foreign ministers. He therefore questioned the necessity of Tinubu travelling to New York primarily for a speaking slot of about 15 minutes.
Ibrahim said the President had other responsibilities to attend to and that Nigeria’s diplomatic interests could still be pursued effectively through the delegation led by Shettima.
The Federal Government had earlier announced that Tinubu had mandated Shettima to represent him at the 81st UNGA. The Ministry of Information said the Vice President would deliver Nigeria’s national statement and participate in high-level meetings, bilateral engagements and discussions with world leaders, international organisations and development partners.
Shettima subsequently delivered the national statement and participated in several engagements during the gathering. According to a statement issued after his return to Nigeria, the Vice President reiterated Nigeria’s position on reform of the UN Security Council and called for stronger African representation, fairer global financing, increased climate support and deeper multilateral cooperation.
Ibrahim also addressed concerns about Nigeria’s seating position at the General Assembly. He said he had promised that Nigeria would occupy a prominent front-row position and maintained that the country secured a seat among the leading positions in the chamber.
The ambassador argued that the seating arrangement demonstrated Nigeria’s diplomatic standing, while also noting that United States President Donald Trump did not remain in his designated seat after delivering his address.
Ibrahim had previously defended Tinubu’s absence by saying the President should not necessarily travel to New York simply to deliver a brief address when the country could be effectively represented by senior officials.
The President’s absence nevertheless generated political debate in Nigeria, with opposition figures questioning the decision. The Presidency maintained that Tinubu was on an extended working vacation and continued to conduct government business while abroad.
Tinubu initially departed Nigeria on August 30 for London, where he began his annual leave, before travelling to Paris for further engagements. The Presidency later announced that his stay would be extended by several days. It said the President remained in contact with officials at home and continued directing government affairs during the period.
While Tinubu was away, Shettima represented him at the UNGA, while other senior officials handled domestic responsibilities delegated by the President.
The President returned to Nigeria on Tuesday, September 29, arriving in Lagos after his European stay. His return brought to an end the period during which questions surrounding his prolonged absence, including the decision not to attend the UNGA personally, had attracted considerable public attention.
Ibrahim also dismissed suggestions that Tinubu’s extended absence violated the Constitution. He distinguished between an official working leave and an absence in which the President was unable to discharge his responsibilities, arguing that Tinubu continued to perform his duties while abroad.
The ambassador’s comments therefore present the Federal Government’s position that Nigeria’s diplomatic representation at the 81st UNGA remained intact despite Tinubu’s physical absence. The political debate over whether the President should have personally attended, however, remains a matter of differing views among government officials, opposition figures and other observers.
