By Simpson Global Media News Desk
The African Action Congress has filed a constitutional lawsuit against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and other senior officials over the failure, as alleged by the party, to transmit a written declaration enabling Vice President Kashim Shettima to act as President during Tinubu’s extended absence from Nigeria.
The suit was filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, September 28, 2026, by the AAC’s National Legal Adviser, Inibehe Effiong. The case names President Tinubu, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Lateef Fagbemi, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas and the National Assembly among the defendants. No date had been fixed for hearing as of the latest reports.
The case comes against the background of President Tinubu’s departure from Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a working vacation. The Presidency initially said the President was expected to spend about three weeks abroad before returning. On September 21, however, it announced that the stay had been extended by several days. By September 28, Tinubu had still not returned as previously indicated, while the Presidency said he would return during the week.
The dispute has brought renewed attention to Section 145 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, as amended, which sets out what is to happen when a President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of the office.
The AAC's lawsuit asks the court to determine whether the President was constitutionally required to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives before or during his absence and, if such a declaration was not transmitted, what constitutional consequences follow.
The case therefore raises a legal question about the relationship between presidential absence, the constitutional mechanism for an Acting President and the role of the National Assembly.
What the lawsuit is asking the court to determine
According to the court filing details reported by Premium Times, the AAC wants the Federal High Court to interpret Section 145(1) and determine whether a President proceeding on vacation can do so without transmitting the written declaration contemplated by the Constitution to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The party is also asking the court to examine the constitutional position of Vice President Shettima during the period of the President’s absence.
The suit is not itself a judicial determination that the President violated the Constitution. That question remains for the court to consider if the case proceeds to substantive determination.
This distinction is important because the filing contains the claims and legal arguments of the claimant, while the defendants have the opportunity to respond and the court will ultimately determine the legal questions placed before it.
The case also comes at a politically significant period, with Nigeria preparing for the 2027 general elections. The country’s political parties and prospective candidates have already entered an active period of mobilisation and legal preparation ahead of the presidential and National Assembly elections scheduled for January 2027.
The constitutional dispute is therefore unfolding alongside an increasingly active electoral environment.
What Section 145 provides
Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended by the First Alteration Act of 2010, specifically addresses temporary presidential absence.
Section 145(1) provides that when the President is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office, the President is to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Until a written declaration to the contrary is transmitted, the Vice President performs the functions of President as Acting President.
The same constitutional provision also addresses a situation in which the President does not transmit the declaration within 21 days.
Section 145(2) provides that where the President is unable or fails to transmit the written declaration within that period, the National Assembly may, by a resolution supported by a simple majority in each chamber, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President until the President communicates his availability to resume his functions.
The constitutional wording has therefore created two related mechanisms: one based on a written declaration from the President and another that becomes relevant where the required declaration is not transmitted within 21 days.
The interpretation and application of those provisions are now central to the AAC's court action.
The chronology behind the dispute
President Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for Europe. The Presidency described the trip as a working vacation and said he would continue to perform his official responsibilities while abroad.
The initial public explanation was that the President would spend about three weeks on the trip.
The period subsequently extended beyond the original timetable. On September 21, the Presidency announced that the President’s stay abroad had been extended by a few days and that he would return to Nigeria at the weekend. That expected return did not take place by Monday, September 28.
In a statement reported on September 28, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga said Tinubu had been on a working vacation, had continued to perform official duties from abroad and would return to Nigeria during the week. The Presidency also said the President was in good health.
The AAC lawsuit was filed on the same day the latest public clarification about the President’s return was reported.
The timing means that the legal challenge concerns an absence that the Presidency says is temporary and during which the President has continued carrying out official duties from abroad.
The constitutional question raised by the AAC, however, focuses specifically on the mechanism in Section 145 rather than simply on whether the President has been able to communicate with officials while abroad.
Shettima's separate role during the period
While the controversy over the President’s absence was developing, Vice President Shettima travelled to New York to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Shettima departed Abuja on September 20 with a mandate from President Tinubu to lead the Nigerian delegation. He returned to Nigeria on September 28, according to a statement issued by Stanley Nkwocha, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Communications in the Office of the Vice President.
During the UN General Assembly visit, Shettima delivered President Tinubu’s national statement at the General Debate.
Nigeria used the international gathering to renew its call for reform of the United Nations Security Council, including permanent representation for Africa. The Nigerian delegation also advanced positions on international financing, climate support and multilateral cooperation.
Shettima also participated in the Third High-Level Roundtable of the Africa Minerals Strategy Group, where Nigeria promoted greater processing and value addition to African mineral resources rather than continued reliance on exports of raw minerals.
At an education-financing event co-hosted by Nigeria and Italy, he reaffirmed Nigeria’s support for education investment and the Global Partnership for Education’s $5 billion financing campaign. He also met members of the Nigerian diaspora and representatives of the ECOWAS Commission and the United Nations.
His return to Nigeria on September 28 means both the President and Vice President are now central to the political discussion surrounding the constitutional dispute, although the lawsuit concerns the legal arrangements for presidential absence rather than Shettima’s international assignment itself.
Why the National Assembly is mentioned in the case
The National Assembly has a specific role under Section 145(2).
If the President fails or is unable to transmit the required written declaration within 21 days, the Constitution provides a mechanism under which the Senate and House of Representatives can, through the prescribed resolutions, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President.
The AAC has therefore included the National Assembly and its principal officers among the defendants.
The Senate President and House Speaker occupy the positions expressly identified in Section 145 as recipients of the President’s written declaration.
The lawsuit accordingly raises questions not only about presidential action but also about the constitutional responsibilities associated with the legislative branch when the conditions described in Section 145 arise.
Whether the court ultimately accepts the AAC’s interpretation will depend on the arguments presented by the parties and the court’s interpretation of the constitutional text and relevant case law.
The Presidency's position
The Presidency has not described the President’s absence as a transfer of executive authority to the Vice President.
Instead, its public explanation has been that Tinubu is on a working vacation and continues to discharge his official duties from abroad. Bayo Onanuga said on September 28 that the President was expected to return during the week.
The Presidency has also indicated that Tinubu is expected to participate in events associated with Nigeria’s 66th Independence Anniversary and the premiere of a film commemorating the late MKO Abiola.
The official position therefore treats the absence as temporary and compatible with the President continuing to exercise his responsibilities.
The AAC's legal argument is directed at whether that position satisfies the specific requirements of Section 145.
Those are competing positions that will ultimately be tested through the judicial process.
The constitutional issue is not simply about foreign travel
A President travelling outside Nigeria is not, by itself, the entire constitutional issue presented by the lawsuit.
The text of Section 145 specifically refers to a President proceeding on vacation or being otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office. The provision then sets out a formal written-declaration mechanism and an Acting President arrangement.
The dispute is therefore about the constitutional treatment of temporary presidential absence.
Earlier legal and public discussions about Section 145 have similarly focused on whether the constitutional mechanism is triggered by vacation itself, inability to discharge presidential functions, or both.
A September 24 analysis in The Independent noted that the Presidency’s announcement of the President’s working vacation had generated questions about whether the Section 145 declaration had been transmitted to the National Assembly leadership. That article also distinguished the President’s ability to work remotely from the separate constitutional question concerning temporary absence.
Premium Times likewise reported earlier in September that the public announcement of the President’s vacation did not disclose whether the Section 145 declaration had been transmitted or whether the Vice President had formally been designated Acting President.
The current lawsuit seeks to move that public debate into a judicial forum.
The 21-day provision
The 21-day period is another significant element of the constitutional framework.
Section 145(2) states that if the President is unable or fails to transmit the written declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly can act by resolution, with a simple majority required in each chamber, to mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President.
The provision does not simply state that the Vice President automatically assumes the presidency after 21 days without any legislative action.
Instead, it expressly assigns a role to the National Assembly.
That wording makes the legislative branch an important part of the constitutional procedure when the 21-day condition becomes relevant.
The precise calculation of the period, the factual status of any declaration that may have been transmitted and the legal consequences of those facts are matters that may become relevant if the court considers the case on its merits.
Public reporting available as of September 28 had not established through the court record cited by Premium Times whether such a written declaration was transmitted.
That is one reason the lawsuit is significant: it seeks a formal determination rather than relying solely on competing public statements.
What the court may have to consider
The Federal High Court will first have to deal with the legal questions properly presented by the originating summons and the responses from the defendants.
The parties may disagree over whether the case is properly constituted, whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the declarations sought, how Section 145 should be interpreted and what factual circumstances should be taken into account.
The defendants will have the opportunity to present their own legal arguments.
The court may also need to examine the constitutional distinction between being physically outside Nigeria and being unable to discharge presidential functions.
The fact that the Presidency says Tinubu continued to perform official duties from abroad is relevant to the government's explanation, but the claimant's argument focuses on the constitutional procedure applicable when a President proceeds on vacation.
The court's task will therefore be to interpret the Constitution rather than determine the matter on the basis of political arguments.
Political context
The case arrives during the build-up to Nigeria’s 2027 elections, making the political context unavoidable even though the immediate question is constitutional.
INEC has already published the timetable for the 2027 general elections, including the campaign schedule, and the commission released its final list of presidential and National Assembly candidates earlier in September.
The election is scheduled for January 16, 2027 for the presidential and National Assembly contests, according to the timetable reported following INEC's publication of the candidate list.
Political parties are consequently organising campaigns, legal teams and electoral structures.
The AAC is among the political organisations participating in that environment, and the lawsuit against the President is therefore both a legal action and a development involving a registered political party during an election cycle.
That context does not determine the legal merits of the case.
A court will consider the constitutional questions placed before it regardless of the electoral calendar.
Other election-related legal disputes
The power-transfer lawsuit is not the only legal development affecting Nigeria’s political landscape ahead of the 2027 elections.
On September 27, Punch reported that new legal battles could arise over political-party primaries following a Supreme Court decision concerning provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 dealing with party membership registers and candidate nominations.
Other reports have also focused on the consequences of the Supreme Court’s interpretation for candidates whose nomination processes could be challenged.
The current political environment is therefore characterised by continuing litigation over electoral rules and candidate eligibility, alongside the ordinary activities of party organisation and campaigning.
The Tinubu-Shettima case adds a constitutional question concerning executive authority to that broader legal landscape.
Why Section 145 matters beyond the current dispute
Section 145 is designed to provide continuity in the exercise of presidential functions when the President is temporarily absent or otherwise unable to discharge those functions.
The provision gives a formal role to the Vice President and the National Assembly.
This arrangement is part of the broader constitutional principle that executive power should operate according to defined rules rather than depend solely on informal understandings.
The written-declaration requirement creates a formal record.
The Acting President mechanism identifies who performs presidential functions during the relevant period.
The 21-day provision provides a further mechanism if the President does not transmit the declaration.
The existence of those provisions is why the current dispute has attracted attention from political parties, lawyers and legislators.
It also explains why the issue has relevance beyond the immediate circumstances of one presidential vacation.
Any judicial interpretation could contribute to the understanding of how future administrations should handle temporary presidential absences.
Nigeria's previous experience
Nigeria has previously experienced major public and constitutional debates over presidential absence and the transfer of presidential functions.
The controversy surrounding the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s prolonged absence became one of the important historical contexts behind subsequent discussions about the need for a clearer constitutional mechanism.
The 2010 constitutional alteration replaced the previous wording of Section 145 with a more detailed provision dealing expressly with vacation, written declarations and the 21-day mechanism.
The current provision therefore reflects an effort to establish a formal process for temporary presidential absence.
The current lawsuit is taking place under that amended constitutional framework.
It is consequently not necessary to rely on historical precedent to establish that Section 145 exists; the present constitutional text expressly contains the mechanism.
The question before the court is how that mechanism applies to the facts now alleged.
The significance of a written declaration
A written declaration has both constitutional and institutional importance.
It identifies the fact of presidential absence for the leadership of the National Assembly and establishes the basis on which the Vice President performs presidential functions as Acting President.
It can also provide an official record of when the temporary arrangement begins and, through a subsequent declaration, when it ends.
This makes the process different from an informal statement that the President remains in contact with officials or is able to give instructions while abroad.
The Constitution expressly identifies the Senate President and Speaker as recipients of the written declaration.
The AAC's lawsuit is therefore focused on whether that constitutional formality was observed.
The role of the Vice President
The Constitution places the Vice President in a specific position during a qualifying presidential absence.
Under Section 145(1), once the relevant written declaration is transmitted, the Vice President performs presidential functions as Acting President until the President transmits a declaration to the contrary.
This does not mean that the Vice President becomes a new President.
The constitutional wording identifies the officeholder as Acting President and sets out the temporary nature of the arrangement.
Section 146, which deals with a vacancy in the office of President, addresses a different constitutional circumstance involving events such as death, resignation, impeachment or permanent incapacity.
The present dispute concerns temporary absence rather than a vacancy in the presidency.
That distinction is important in understanding the constitutional architecture.
The National Assembly's position
The Senate and House of Representatives have not, according to the reports reviewed for this article, publicly announced a resolution under Section 145(2) mandating Shettima to act as President during the period in question.
The AAC's filing names the National Assembly and its principal officers among the defendants, bringing the legislature directly into the legal dispute.
The lawsuit therefore potentially places questions about legislative procedure before the Federal High Court as well.
If the court reaches the substance of the Section 145(2) issue, the interpretation of the 21-day provision and the National Assembly’s responsibilities could become part of the legal discussion.
Any final determination would depend on the court's ruling and the factual evidence presented by the parties.
The Presidency's continued official activity
Even while abroad, Tinubu has continued to issue or approve official communications through the Presidency.
The State House website on September 28 listed several recent presidential activities and statements, including a message congratulating Nigerian filmmakers Damilola Osikoya and Nora Awolowo on a Guinness World Record connected to a film screening in Lagos.
The State House continues to identify Tinubu as President and Shettima as Vice President in its official leadership information.
Those official records are consistent with the Presidency's public position that Tinubu remains in office and continues to perform official duties.
They do not, however, by themselves resolve the specific legal question raised by the AAC concerning Section 145.
That question is about the constitutional procedure governing temporary absence.
What the lawsuit does not establish
The filing of a lawsuit should not be confused with a court judgment.
The AAC has made specific claims and asked the Federal High Court for declarations.
The court has not, on the basis of the reports reviewed for this article, issued a final ruling determining that the President violated Section 145.
Nor has the filing established that the President is incapable of performing his duties.
The Presidency's stated position remains that Tinubu is performing his official functions while abroad and is expected to return during the week.
These distinctions are central to responsible reporting of the case.
The legal issue should therefore be described as a constitutional question raised by the claimant and awaiting judicial determination rather than as an established finding against the President.
What happens next
The immediate next step is for the Federal High Court to process the suit and for the defendants to respond through the judicial procedure.
The court will determine the appropriate procedural steps and, if the matter proceeds, consider the constitutional arguments and evidence presented by the parties.
The timing of a hearing was not fixed in the reports available on September 28.
Meanwhile, the Presidency has said Tinubu will return to Nigeria during the week.
Vice President Shettima has already returned from New York after completing his assignment at the United Nations General Assembly.
If Tinubu returns as stated, the immediate practical circumstances surrounding the absence will change, but the legal questions raised by the lawsuit could remain relevant because the case concerns what the Constitution required during the period of absence.
A court may therefore be asked to address questions that have significance beyond whether the President is physically back in Nigeria.
Implications for constitutional practice
The outcome could provide additional judicial guidance on the application of Section 145.
If the court interprets the provision, its reasoning could help clarify how future Presidents should approach periods of vacation or other temporary absence.
It could also clarify the respective roles of the President, Vice President and National Assembly when the written-declaration mechanism is invoked or when the 21-day period becomes relevant.
Such clarification would have institutional significance regardless of the political identities of the people occupying those offices.
Nigeria's Constitution is intended to apply to officeholders and institutions rather than to individual political parties.
A clear interpretation of Section 145 could therefore become part of the broader body of constitutional law governing executive succession and temporary absence.
The electoral dimension remains separate
Although the AAC is a political party preparing for the 2027 elections, the court case and the electoral contest remain separate processes.
The election will be administered by INEC under the applicable electoral framework, while the constitutional lawsuit will be determined through the judicial system.
Political parties may use public legal disputes as part of their political communication, but the factual outcome of the lawsuit will depend on the court.
Similarly, the filing of the case does not itself alter the electoral timetable or the constitutional status of the President and Vice President.
INEC's electoral timetable remains the relevant framework for the 2027 elections.
A question of institutional procedure
At its core, the dispute is about institutional procedure.
The President says he has been working while abroad and plans to return.
The AAC says the Constitution imposes a formal requirement when the President proceeds on vacation and has asked the court to determine whether that requirement was satisfied.
Section 145 provides a written-declaration process and a separate mechanism involving the National Assembly if the declaration is not transmitted within 21 days.
The courts are now being asked to determine how those provisions apply to the facts surrounding Tinubu’s current absence.
That is the central issue that will need to be separated from wider political arguments about the President, the opposition, the 2027 election or the administration’s performance.
The broader constitutional principle
The dispute also illustrates the importance of written constitutional procedures in a presidential system.
Nigeria's Constitution assigns powers and responsibilities to different branches of government and establishes procedures for periods when an officeholder is temporarily unavailable.
Where the meaning or application of a provision becomes disputed, courts provide the institutional mechanism for resolving the legal question.
The present case gives the judiciary an opportunity to examine one of those provisions against a contemporary situation involving an extended presidential absence.
The case will also test how political actors and public institutions understand the distinction between operational continuity and formal constitutional procedure.
The Presidency has emphasised continuity of presidential duties from abroad.
The claimant has emphasised the constitutional requirement for a written declaration.
Those positions can be tested against the actual wording of Section 145 and the evidence before the court.
The road ahead
Nigeria's political calendar will continue moving while the constitutional case develops.
Parties will continue preparations for the 2027 elections, candidates will campaign, courts will consider electoral disputes and government institutions will continue their work.
Against that background, the AAC lawsuit has introduced a separate legal issue concerning the exercise of presidential authority during temporary absence.
The immediate facts are straightforward: Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for a working vacation; the Presidency later extended the trip; the President had not returned by September 28 as previously announced; the Presidency said he would return during the week; Shettima returned to Nigeria after leading the country's UN General Assembly delegation; and the AAC filed its constitutional suit in Abuja on September 28.
What remains unresolved is the legal question at the centre of the lawsuit: whether the constitutional requirements governing temporary presidential absence were complied with and, if not, what legal consequences follow.
That question now belongs to the judicial process.
Until a court determines otherwise, the Presidency's stated position remains that Tinubu continues to discharge his responsibilities and will return to Nigeria during the week. The AAC's position remains that the constitutional procedure under Section 145 should have been followed in relation to the President's vacation.
The Federal High Court will have to consider those competing positions within the framework of the Constitution.
The outcome could matter not only to the immediate dispute surrounding the President's September 2026 absence but also to the future interpretation of one of Nigeria's key provisions governing continuity of executive authority.
For now, the case marks another significant legal development in an already active political period, with the 2027 elections approaching and questions over constitutional procedure, executive authority and institutional responsibility increasingly moving from political debate into formal legal proceedings.
Comments
Post a Comment