As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s overseas engagements continue to dominate public discourse, many Nigerians are expressing sharply divided opinions over what they describe as the President’s frequent foreign travels at a time of deepening economic and security challenges at home.
Reports indicate that President Tinubu spent a total of 23 days outside Nigeria in January 2026 alone, having departed the country on December 28, 2025, for Europe.
His itinerary included nine days in France for an end-of-year break and holiday, followed by a seven-day stay in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where he participated in the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week (ADSW) 2026. The President then proceeded to Turkey on a state visit, spending another six days before returning to Nigeria.
The extended absence has drawn criticism from opposition figures and concerned citizens alike. Former Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, was among the earliest voices to condemn the President’s travel pattern, noting that the first month of the year is often a defining period for setting the tone of governance.
Obi lamented that while the President was away for most of January, Nigeria’s insecurity, inflation and social pressures appeared to be worsening.
Across the country, reactions from Nigerians reflect a mix of frustration, scepticism and cautious defence of the President’s actions.
For Divine Akor, the idea of a president spending 23 days abroad in a single month is “outrageous,” especially given what he described as crushing inflation, widespread hunger and escalating insecurity.
Akor questioned the justification often offered by government supporters that such trips are necessary for economic diplomacy and global engagement.
According to him, diplomacy without measurable outcomes amounts to little more than “glorified excursions.” He argued that Nigerians are yet to see tangible benefits in terms of foreign investments, job creation or economic relief tied to the President’s numerous international trips.
“Where are the investments these trips have attracted? Where are the jobs? Where is the relief Nigerians can feel?” Akor asked, suggesting that the travels appear more like personal retreats or medical visits than strategic engagements capable of transforming the country’s fortunes.
Echoing similar concerns, Michael Ameh criticised what he described as a contradiction between the President’s call for national sacrifice and his perceived lifestyle abroad. Ameh argued that leadership during hardship demands presence, empathy and urgency, not prolonged absence.
“No one says a president shouldn’t travel,” he said. “But excessive travel during national hardship looks less like strategy and more like detachment. Nigeria doesn’t need more handshakes overseas; it needs decisive action and delivery at home.”
Ameh challenged the President to demonstrate the impact of his trips through visible improvements in electricity supply, infrastructure, inflation control and overall living standards, warning that failure to do so would reinforce the belief that the journeys serve personal interests rather than national development.
Paul Igbashangev also expressed unease, describing the President as “jet-setting more than governing.” While acknowledging that foreign trips can yield benefits, he questioned the lack of visible outcomes for ordinary Nigerians after more than two years in office.
“Agreements and partnerships are fine, but show us the results,” he said, pointing to the billions reportedly spent on foreign travel while many Nigerians struggle with daily survival. “Shouldn’t making life better for Nigerians be the priority?”
However, not all voices were critical. Augustine Oyiwona offered a more balanced view, noting that while Nigerians are understandably sceptical due to the high cost of such trips amid economic hardship, foreign visits are not inherently negative.
He argued that international engagements can attract investors, strengthen Nigeria’s global standing and facilitate critical negotiations on debt, trade, energy and security.
According to Oyiwona, face-to-face diplomacy remains essential in securing partnerships, adding that recent cooperation between Nigeria and countries like the United States demonstrates the potential security benefits of such engagements.
READ ALSO: 316 Nigerian killed in 71 days despite Tinubu’s security emergency declaration
In defence of the President, Abdulkadir Hassan stressed that fostering international relationships is a core responsibility of any head of state.
He maintained that President Tinubu’s visits to France, the UAE and Turkey in January were aimed at strengthening Nigeria’s economic, security and social ties with key global partners.
Hassan highlighted the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week as a strategic platform for Nigeria to attract investment, advance its renewable energy agenda and deepen international collaboration.
He also pointed to concrete outcomes from the Turkey visit, where Nigeria reportedly signed multiple agreements covering defence cooperation, trade, diaspora policy, education, media, halal quality infrastructure and diplomatic training.
“While it may look excessive to some, these trips were not undertaken in isolation,” Hassan said. “They were meant to develop Nigeria and benefit Nigerians in the long run.”
As the debate continues, one point remains clear: Nigerians are demanding accountability, transparency and results.
Whether President Tinubu’s extensive foreign engagements will translate into measurable improvements at home remains the central question shaping public opinion—and one that many citizens insist must be answered with action, not assurances.