Former presidential aide and Arise Television anchor, Reuben Abati, has faulted Atiku Abubakar’s criticism of President Bola Tinubu’s three-week vacation in Europe.
Abati said the Atiku camp was raising questions that were embarrassing and had not been properly researched.
He spoke on Monday while reacting to concerns over Tinubu’s decision to embark on a three-week working vacation outside Nigeria.
Atiku had, in a statement on Sunday, criticised Tinubu’s absence from the country amid widespread hardship. He described it as a disturbing vacuum of political leadership.
Abati responded that Tinubu was entitled to travel. He said the President could go wherever he wanted, provided his absence did not exceed the constitutional threshold requiring him to formally transfer power.
Abati said: “The Atiku group is also raising questions that are embarrassing and have not been properly researched: ‘I will reopen all our borders. Tinubu is 90 years old, I will provide the evidence. Tinubu should not travel abroad. Why is he travelling?’
“Okay, let me address that very quickly. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has now gone on what they call a working vacation for three weeks, which he is entitled to. If you break that down, I think the major concern, as I see it, is that the presidency has tried to stay within the 21-day threshold under Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution.
“I guess if the president travels and it doesn’t exceed 21 days, he doesn’t have to hand over. So, there’s no evidence that the president has handed over.
“As for a working vacation, state visit or whatever, he is entitled to it. So, wherever he wants to go, he can go.
“The explanation that has been given by the party (APC) is that he has to go and refuel. Well, that’s okay, that’s fine. They can hold on to that.
“I think where the problem is, which is where the Atiku camp should have put their focus, is that as of the time the president was travelling yesterday, I’m not sure that the Vice President of Nigeria was in the country.
“So, at the same time, the Vice President was in Angola, while the President was on his way to Europe.”
Abati maintained that Tinubu’s travel was within the bounds of the law. He stressed that the president had not crossed the 21-day limit that would require a formal transfer of power.
He dismissed the suggestion that the president’s absence created a leadership vacuum. He said the constitution provides clear rules on when a formal handover becomes necessary.
Abati’s comments came after Atiku criticised the timing of Tinubu’s trip. Atiku had argued that the country faced serious economic and security challenges that required the president’s presence at home.
Abati rejected that line of attack. He said the questions raised by the Atiku camp lacked proper research and only served to embarrass the critics.
He repeated that Tinubu was free to travel. He said the president could go on vacation, working trips or any other form of travel as long as he remained within the constitutional limit.
Abati called on the Atiku camp to focus on more substantial issues. He said raising poorly researched questions about the president’s travel did not advance serious political debate.
He maintained that the constitution allows the president to travel without handing over power if the absence stays within 21 days. He said Tinubu had followed that rule.
Abati said that the president could travel anywhere he chose.
He said the law supports that right and that the Atiku camp’s criticism failed to recognise it.