By Shuaibu Usman Leman
There was a time in Nigeria’s recent history when foreign travel by public office holders was undertaken with clear purpose, strategic intent, and a deep sense of responsibility.
Trips by presidents, governors, and legislators were not excuses for personal leisure or convenient escapes from governance.
Instead, they were driven by national interest—securing foreign investment, strengthening diplomatic ties, attracting development aid, or restoring Nigeria’s global standing.
These journeys were carefully planned, transparently communicated, and guided by well-defined objectives.
In the early years of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration, this purposeful approach was clearly evident.
Emerging from decades of military rule and international isolation, Nigeria faced skepticism from the global community. Obasanjo’s “shuttle diplomacy” was a deliberate effort to re-establish Nigeria’s international relevance.
During his eight years in office, he visited nearly 100 countries—not out of indulgence, but in pursuit of debt relief, foreign investment, and the rehabilitation of Nigeria’s image abroad.
Though some critics questioned the frequency of his travels, each visit was tied to tangible goals, and each return was marked by reportable outcomes.
The logic was simple: for Nigeria to be taken seriously on the global stage, it had to be present and proactive. At the same time, governance at home continued—formal power transfers were made when necessary, and constitutional processes were respected.
Today, however, we are witnessing a troubling departure from this tradition of purposeful leadership. Foreign travel by public officials has become increasingly opaque, questionably justified, and disturbingly unaccountable.
A culture of absenteeism now characterizes Nigeria’s political elite.
Most recently, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s extended ten-day “working holiday” in Europe drew sharp public criticism. His absence came at a time when the nation was reeling under unprecedented inflation, fuel shortages, widespread insecurity, and deepening public discontent. Regardless of justification, such a protracted absence sends a disheartening signal to citizens who are enduring daily hardship.
This trend, however, did not begin with Tinubu. President Muhammadu Buhari, his immediate predecessor, frequently embarked on extended medical trips abroad. While health concerns are legitimate, Buhari’s frequent absences often left the country in a state of uncertainty.
The Nigerian Constitution, under Section 145, mandates that when the president is unable to discharge his duties, he must formally transfer power to the vice president.
Yet, throughout his tenure, Buhari complied with this constitutional requirement only once—in August 2017—leaving behind a legacy of constitutional ambiguity and leadership by absence.
This not only stalled governance at critical moments but also set a dangerous precedent—normalizing constitutional neglect and weakening public trust.
The implications are profound. When the highest office in the land is unattended for long periods, it creates a vacuum.
Decision-making stalls, institutions weaken, and citizens grow increasingly disillusioned. The rule of law suffers when constitutional provisions are routinely ignored with impunity.
Unfortunately,this pattern extends beyond the presidency.
State governors, entrusted with leadership at the grassroots, have adopted similar habits. It’s now commonplace to see governors embarking on vague “investment drives,” overseas “healthcare visits,” or “international conferences”—often during times of crisis in their states.
Security deteriorates, pensions go unpaid, infrastructure collapses, and essential services falter—all while governors are away, often without constitutionally transferring power to their deputies.
This is not simply about physical presence—it is about functional leadership.
An absent chief executive cannot respond to crises, make timely decisions, or inspire public servants. Their absence drains morale, delays action, and deepens the disconnect between government and the governed.
The National Assembly has not been immune to this troubling trend. Lawmakers frequently embark on foreign “retreats,” “seminars,” and “oversight visits” at great public expense. Often, these trips coincide with key legislative sessions or critical national debates.
Rarely are the outcomes of such trips made public, and their benefit to constituents remains questionable. This erodes the integrity of legislative work and suggests a prioritization of personal gain over national service.
To be clear: international engagement is a vital aspect of modern governance. Nigeria must maintain a strong global presence to attract investment, foster collaboration, and influence international policy. But such engagement must be underpinned by transparency, constitutional adherence, and—most importantly—a demonstrable return on investment for the Nigerian people.
Leadership is not about occupying office or collecting travel stamps. It is about accountability, visibility, and constant engagement.
A president cannot govern effectively from a luxury suite in Europe while citizens struggle at home.
A governor cannot lead from afar while crises engulf their state. Lawmakers cannot claim to represent their constituents from overseas conferences while ignoring domestic legislative duties.
There is also a powerful symbolic dimension to this absenteeism. When leaders are physically and emotionally detached from their people, the message is clear: the daily struggles of ordinary Nigerians are not a priority.
This deepens the trust deficit, weakens democracy, and alienates citizens from the institutions meant to serve them.Nigerians are not unreasonable. They understand the demands of public office. They know that foreign travel may be necessary, and they accept that leaders may require time away for personal health.
But they expect such absences to be justified, limited, and fully accounted for. Most of all, they expect their leaders to be present—in body, spirit, and action.
This calls for a fundamental shift in leadership mindset. Proximity to the people must not be seen as a burden. It is a strength. Effective leaders must reconnect with citizens—walk through markets, visit schools and hospitals unannounced, speak to farmers, traders, teachers, and the unemployed.
Only through such engagement can policies be grounded in reality and governance regain legitimacy.
For too long, Nigeria has been weighed down by leadership that retreats in times of need. This pattern must end. Absentee governance weakens institutions, erodes public trust, and prolongs national hardship.
It is time to draw a clear distinction between meaningful diplomatic engagement and a culture of executive detachment.
Nigeria is not a remote job. It demands leaders who are here—not just in title, but in presence, spirit, and action.
It demands accountability, transparency, and a renewed commitment to the citizens who placed them in office. Only then can Nigeria begin the long, essential journey toward rebuilding trust, restoring legitimacy, and forging a more hopeful future.
Leman is a former National Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) Email:shuaibuusmanleman@yahoo.com
