The African Action Congress, AAC, has sued President Bola Tinubu before the Federal High Court in Abuja over the alleged failure to transmit presidential powers to Vice-President Kashim Shettima during the President’s prolonged stay in Europe.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2353/2026 and dated September 28, 2026, was filed through an originating summons by the AAC’s National Legal Adviser, Inibehe Effiong. The case names Tinubu, Attorney-General of the Federation Lateef Fagbemi, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, and the National Assembly as defendants.
Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a three-week working vacation. The State House announced on September 21 that the President had extended his stay abroad by a few days and was expected to return at the weekend. His return was later revised to Tuesday, September 29, according to the Presidency.
The AAC’s lawsuit centres on Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, which deals with the exercise of presidential functions during the President’s temporary absence.
The party is asking the Federal High Court to declare that Tinubu’s alleged failure or refusal to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives before proceeding on vacation violated the constitutional provision.
Section 145(1) provides that when the President is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he is to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker, after which the Vice-President performs the presidential functions as Acting President. Section 145(2) provides a further mechanism where the President fails to transmit the declaration within 21 days, allowing the National Assembly, by a simple majority in each chamber, to mandate the Vice-President to act as President.
The AAC is therefore asking the court to determine whether the failure of the National Assembly to pass such a resolution after Tinubu’s absence exceeded 21 days was unconstitutional.
The party is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining Tinubu and future presidents from proceeding on vacation without complying with the requirements of Section 145(1).
The case comes amid a wider public and political debate over the constitutional implications of Tinubu’s extended absence from Nigeria.
Earlier in September, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar questioned whether the required constitutional declaration had been transmitted, while other political figures also raised questions about the continued absence of the President after the initial 21-day period.
The Presidency, however, has maintained that Tinubu has remained engaged in government affairs while abroad. In its September 21 statement, the State House said the President had continued to direct affairs of government and had delegated Shettima to represent him at some official functions.
The constitutional debate has also attracted differing legal interpretations, particularly over the effect of the 21-day provision and whether the President must transmit the written declaration at the beginning of every vacation. A recent legal analysis published by THISDAY argued that Section 145(1) imposes a duty on the President to formally notify the National Assembly when proceeding on vacation, while also noting that the interpretation of the provision has generated legal debate.
The AAC is now asking the Federal High Court to determine the constitutional questions raised by Tinubu’s absence and the response, or lack of response, from the National Assembly.
How did this story make you feel?
Join the conversation
Share a thoughtful response. Submissions may be reviewed before appearing.
