When Leadership Goes Airborne

There's a recurring Nigerian debate about whether a president must physically be in the country for it to function. The question is, must Nigerians watch their leaders travel globally while the nation struggles, without questioning the timing, cost and necessity of those trips? President Bola Tinubu recently embarked on a three-week European vacation, claiming it was a "working holiday" for election preparations.

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and former Anambra governor Peter Obi criticized this move, arguing the country, grappling with insecurity and economic hardship, needs more of the president's physical attention. However, there's irony in this criticism. Atiku faced similar criticism for frequent international travel during his tenure.

The real question is whether we can hold all presidents to the same standard. The constitution allows for temporary absences, and modern governments are supposed to function without the chief executive present. But responsible leadership involves more than legality. A president's absence can raise questions about judgment, especially when faced with national crises.

While presidents need rest, the issue is whether there are disciplined rules for such absences and their costs. Presidential travel-related expenses in 2024 and 2025 alone amounted to N34.39 billion, and broader travel costs from June 2023 to April 2026 were around N37.64 billion. This raises questions about transparency and fiscal discipline.

Nigeria often lectures citizens on sacrifice and fiscal responsibility, yet presidential travel can seem like an endless institutional hospitality fund. The question isn't whether presidents should travel abroad, but what national benefits do these trips bring, and could the same objectives be achieved more efficiently? Other democracies offer lessons in publishing travel information and requiring ministers to justify their foreign trips.