Prolonged absence: Tinubu sued for refusing to hand over power

The African Action Congress, AAC, has sued President Bola Tinubu before the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, over his refusal to hand over power to Vice-President Kashim Shettima since he travelled to Europe on August 30, 2026.

The suit, tagged FHC/ABJ/CS/2353/2026 and dated September 28, 2026, was filed by way of an originating summons by the AAC’s National Legal Adviser, Inihebe Effiong.

According to the suit, President Tinubu is listed as the first defendant; the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, as the second defendant; the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, as the third defendant; the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Abbas Tajudeen, as the fourth defendant; and the National Assembly as the fifth defendant.

Recall that the President left Nigeria for Europe for a three-week working vacation as part of his annual leave.

The Presidency, on September 21, when Tinubu was originally billed to return to Nigeria, announced an extension of the President’s vacation by a few more days, with his return expected last weekend.

Meanwhile, as of Monday, September 28, President Tinubu had yet to return.

In the suit, the AAC is seeking a declaration that President Tinubu’s failure or refusal to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to enable the National Assembly to pass a resolution authorising Vice-President Kashim Shettima to perform the functions of the office of President as Acting President, is undemocratic, unlawful and a violation of Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The party is also asking the court to declare that the failure of the National Assembly to pass a resolution to enable Shettima to become Acting President after Tinubu’s absence exceeded 21 days is unconstitutional.

“The AAC also prayed the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction restraining President Tinubu and future Presidents from proceeding on vacation without complying with the provisions of Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” the suit reads in part.