Tinubu Can Go Anywhere” – Abati Fires Back At Atiku

Arise Television anchor, Reuben Abati, has reacted to criticism from former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, over President Bola Tinubu’s three-week working vacation in Europe.

According to Bush Radio Academy, Abati dismissed the concerns raised by Atiku, arguing that the President is constitutionally permitted to travel provided his absence does not exceed the period that would require him to formally transfer power.

Atiku had criticised Tinubu’s decision to embark on the trip, questioning the necessity of the President’s absence at a time when Nigerians are facing economic challenges.

Speaking during an edition of Arise Television’s Morning Show, Abati described some of the questions coming from Atiku’s camp as embarrassing and suggested that they had not been adequately researched.

The media personality explained that Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution provides a 21-day threshold concerning a president’s absence from the country and the need to transmit power.

According to him, Tinubu’s three-week trip falls within the period allowed, meaning there was no constitutional requirement for the President to hand over power, provided the absence does not exceed the stipulated timeframe.

Abati said Tinubu was entitled to travel for a working vacation or other official engagements and could visit wherever he wished.

He, however, identified what he considered a more important issue surrounding the President’s trip, noting that Vice President Kashim Shettima was reportedly outside Nigeria at the time Tinubu departed for Europe.

Abati said the Atiku camp should have focused more attention on the whereabouts of the Vice President, rather than questioning the President’s decision to travel.

He noted that while Tinubu was travelling to Europe, Shettima was reportedly in Angola, raising questions about the simultaneous absence of both the President and Vice President from the country.

The development has continued to attract political reactions as opposition figures and supporters of the administration debate the President’s foreign engagements and the constitutional implications of his absence from Nigeria.