Tinubu: Why Akpabio Rejected Acting President Role — Rufai Oseni

Arise Television presenter Rufai Oseni has offered an explanation for Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s decision to reject suggestions that he should be addressed as Nigeria’s Acting President during President Bola Tinubu’s prolonged absence from the country.

Akpabio recently clarified that he was not the Acting President, insisting that Tinubu remained in charge of the country despite being away on a working leave.

The Senate President said Tinubu continued to perform his responsibilities from abroad and that there was no vacancy in the Presidency.

His comments followed growing public discussion over the absence of both the President and Vice President Kashim Shettima from Nigeria at the same time.

Speaking on the issue, Oseni suggested that Akpabio’s position was connected to the constitutional procedure for transferring presidential powers.

The presenter noted that the Constitution provides a formal process through which the President can transmit a written declaration to the National Assembly when temporarily unable to perform his functions.

He said that without such a formal transmission of power, the Senate President could not simply assume the role of Acting President because the President was outside the country.

Akpabio had similarly stressed that Tinubu remained in power and continued to run the affairs of the country while abroad.

The issue has generated debate over the constitutional implications of the President’s absence, particularly because the Vice President was also outside Nigeria during part of the period.

Oseni’s comments therefore focused on the distinction between the President being physically absent from the country and a formal transfer of presidential powers.

The controversy comes as questions continue to be raised about how presidential responsibilities should be handled when both the President and Vice President are away from Nigeria.

Akpabio has maintained that there was no vacancy in the Presidency and that Tinubu remained constitutionally in charge.

The matter has consequently renewed public discussion about constitutional provisions governing presidential absence and the formal assumption of presidential duties.