President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will leave Abuja on Sunday for a three-week vacation, with London, United Kingdom, as his first destination, according to the Presidency.
The development was announced in a statement issued on Sunday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.
Onanuga said the trip is part of Tinubu’s annual leave and described the period as a vacation during which the President will also engage in working activities.
“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will depart Abuja today for Europe to begin a three-week vacation as part of his annual leave,” the statement said.
According to the Presidency, Tinubu’s first stop will be London, although it did not provide details of the other European destinations the President may visit during the break.
The President is expected to return to Nigeria at the end of the three-week period and resume his official duties as the country prepares for the 2027 general elections.
The Presidency said Tinubu would return home “to join the hectic campaign for the January 2027 election.”
The President’s departure comes amid increased political activities ahead of the 2027 elections, with political parties and opposition groups already intensifying preparations for the polls.
Tinubu, who was elected president in 2023 on the platform of the All Progressives Congress, is seeking another term in office.
His decision to proceed on vacation also comes days after fresh developments emerged in the United States over records relating to an old investigation involving him.
As previously reported, the Federal Bureau of Investigation submitted documents connected to its 1993 investigation involving Tinubu to a US federal judge for confidential review.
The documents were delivered on Friday, August 28, to Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, following a court order directing the FBI to meet a deadline in a long-running Freedom of Information Act case.
The records were not released to the public or provided to American transparency campaigner Aaron Greenspan, who has been seeking access to them.
Instead, the FBI submitted the material “under seal, ex parte, in camera,” meaning the documents were placed under seal and presented privately to the judge for review.
The development does not amount to a public release of the records and does not represent a new judicial finding against Tinubu.
Judge Howell is expected to examine the documents and determine whether the FBI has sufficient legal grounds to withhold some or all of the material.
The dispute centres on records relating to investigations involving Tinubu in the early 1990s, including FBI files and interview records known as Form 302 reports from the 1992 and 1993 period.
Greenspan began pursuing the documents through Freedom of Information Act requests before taking the matter to court. He has worked with Nigerian journalist David Hundeyin in seeking access to the records.
The case has involved repeated disagreements over how much of the material should be disclosed, with the FBI previously arguing that some information could not be explained publicly without revealing sensitive law-enforcement details.
In an earlier court filing, the FBI said, “The FBI has determined that it cannot provide on the public record the full basis for the application of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to certain withholdings and that, therefore, an ex parte, under seal declaration is necessary.”
The exemptions cited by the agency relate to areas including investigative methods and information that could potentially affect an individual’s safety.
The controversy is linked to allegations and investigations concerning Tinubu during his time in the United States in the early 1990s. One related matter involved a 1993 civil forfeiture case in Chicago involving about $460,000.
Publicly available US court records have previously shown that funds linked to Tinubu were forfeited to the US government.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing and has not been criminally convicted in connection with the matter.
His legal representatives have also opposed the release of additional records, arguing that disclosure could infringe on his privacy and expose personal information without producing any new criminal finding against him.