By Annette Ikponmwonba | September 22, 2026
Key Points
· The Presidency says President Tinubu can continue governing Nigeria regardless of his physical location
· Special Adviser on Policy Communication Daniel Bwala made the clarification responding to Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi
· The two opposition figures had questioned who was in charge while Tinubu is in Paris and Shettima is in the US for the UN General Assembly
· Bwala cited Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution as the legal basis for the President’s executive powers regardless of location
· He argued the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief extends beyond Nigeria’s borders
· Bwala also criticised Atiku and Obi for not offering a clear alternative beyond what he called populist rhetoric
Main Story
The Presidency has said President Bola Tinubu can continue to govern Nigeria regardless of his physical location, following questions raised by opposition figures about who is effectively running the country during his current travels. Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala, made the clarification on Monday while responding to comments from former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi.
The two opposition figures had questioned who was effectively in charge of Nigeria while Tinubu is currently in Paris and Vice President Kashim Shettima is in the United States for the 81st United Nations General Assembly. Bwala pushed back directly, arguing that the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional powers does not depend on his physical presence within Nigeria.
According to Bwala, the Constitution grants the President authority to direct the affairs of the country and exercise his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces even while outside Nigeria, citing Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution as the legal basis for these executive powers.
The Issues
The exchange highlights a recurring point of political contention in Nigeria around presidential travel and the perceived optics of governance continuity, particularly when both the President and Vice President are abroad simultaneously. While Bwala’s constitutional argument rests on established executive authority provisions, the underlying political debate often centers less on strict legal capacity and more on public perception of leadership visibility and accountability during periods of overseas travel.
This kind of exchange also reflects the broader dynamic between the ruling administration and opposition figures like Atiku and Obi, both of whom remain prominent voices ahead of the 2027 election cycle. Questions about governance during presidential absences can serve as a recurring point of political critique, regardless of their constitutional merit, particularly when used to draw attention to broader concerns about leadership accountability or transparency.
What’s Being Said
Bwala was direct and somewhat pointed in his response, framing the opposition’s questions as an unnecessary distraction rather than a legitimate governance concern. He wrote on social media, “It is funny how opposition candidates are asking the question who is in charge of Nigeria simply because the president and Vice President are out of the country.”
He went further to lay out the constitutional basis for his argument, stating plainly that the power of the president to govern Nigeria is not limited to geography, and that as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President can order, direct, delegate and administer the constitution of Nigeria anywhere in the world, Bwala also used the moment to level a broader political critique at Atiku and Obi, arguing that both have yet to articulate a clear alternative political vision beyond what he characterised as populist rhetoric.
What’s Next
It remains to be seen whether Atiku or Obi will respond further to Bwala’s constitutional clarification, or whether the exchange develops into a more sustained back and forth between the Presidency and opposition figures over governance and leadership questions.
Attention will also likely remain on when Tinubu and Shettima return to Nigeria following their respective engagements in Paris and at the UN General Assembly in New York, which may naturally settle the immediate controversy even as the broader political sparring between the parties continues.
Bottom Line
The Presidency’s response reflects a broader pattern of political sparring between the Tinubu administration and opposition figures like Atiku and Obi, with Bwala using constitutional grounding to dismiss questions about governance continuity while simultaneously using the moment to challenge the opposition’s own political credibility ahead of the 2027 election cycle.
