Adedayo Akinwale in Abuja
Some concerned lawmakers in the House of Representatives, have expressed concern over the constitutional uncertainty surrounding the continued absence of President Bola Tinubu from Nigeria.
To this end, the concerned lawmakers also called for immediate reconvening of both Chambers of the National Assembly to address the constitutional situation; and immediate compliance with Section 145(2) where no declaration was transmitted within the constitutionally prescribed 21-day period.
The lawmakers in a statement by Hon. Awaji-Inombek Abiante (NDC, Rivers State) and Hon. Abubakar Yahaya (APC, Katsina) on behalf of the group recalled that the presidency announced that Tinubu departed Nigeria on 30 August, 2026 for a three-week vacation and subsequently confirmed that his stay abroad had been extended by a few days.
The lawmakers under the auspices of Save Democracy Group decried the failure to transmit the written declaration required under Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides that whenever the President proceeds on vacation, he shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, following which the Vice-President shall perform the functions of President as Acting President.
Also, Section 145(2) provides that where the President is unable or fails to transmit that declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly shall, by a simple-majority resolution of each House, mandate the Vice-President to perform the functions of President as Acting President until the President communicates his availability to resume his functions.
The lawmakers said: “Constitutional question is therefore straightforward: Was the declaration required by Section 145 transmitted to the leadership of the National Assembly?
“If it was transmitted, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives should immediately make that fact clear to Nigerians.
“If it was not transmitted, the 21-day constitutional period has elapsed and the National Assembly has a responsibility to act in accordance with Section 145(2).”
The lawmakers maintained that the constitution could not be replaced by assurances that the President remained in communication with officials or continued to issue directives from abroad.
They argued that the question was not whether modern technology allowed the president to work from another country, but whether the Constitution has been obeyed.
The lawmakers stressed that other African democracies demonstrated that temporary transfer of presidential authority needed not create controversy.