For successive Nigerian presidents, the United Nations General Assembly has traditionally provided one of the most important international platforms for presenting the country’s foreign-policy priorities, seeking support for national interests and engaging directly with world leaders.

But under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a notable change has emerged.

Tinubu personally attended the 78th United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 2023, where he addressed the General Debate. Since then, however, he has not personally attended the annual gathering. Vice President Kashim Shettima represented him at the 79th session in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and, again, at the ongoing 81st session in 2026.

The pattern raises a broader question: why has the Nigerian president chosen not to personally attend the world’s largest annual gathering of heads of government for three consecutive years?

Nigeria’s engagement with the UN predates independence. The country joined the organisation on October 7, 1960, days after becoming independent.

Nigeria’s first Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, became the country’s first leader to address the UN General Assembly after independence. His appearance helped establish Nigeria’s role in multilateral diplomacy at a time when newly independent African states were seeking greater influence in international affairs.

Subsequent civilian and military administrations continued to use the UN platform to articulate Nigeria’s positions on African liberation, international security, development and global governance.

Following the return to democratic rule in 1999, President Olusegun Obasanjo regularly participated in the General Assembly and used the platform to discuss African development, international security and Nigeria’s role in continental affairs.

President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua also personally addressed the General Assembly during his administration.

President Goodluck Jonathan continued the tradition, including his participation in the 2010 and 2014 sessions, when issues such as terrorism, democratic governance and Nigeria’s role in international peacekeeping featured prominently in his addresses.

President Muhammadu Buhari likewise attended several sessions. In 2015, he personally addressed the 70th General Assembly, and he also delivered Nigeria’s national statements at subsequent sessions, including the 76th in 2021 and the 77th in 2022.

The pattern was therefore relatively familiar: the Nigerian president would often use the General Assembly as an opportunity to speak directly to the international community.

Tinubu’s first and only appearance

Tinubu continued that tradition in his first year as president.

On September 19, 2023, he entered the General Assembly Hall in New York and addressed the 78th session.

The official UN record identifies him as Nigeria’s President and records his address to the General Debate.

His appearance was significant because it provided the newly elected president with an opportunity to introduce his administration’s priorities to an international audience.

But that personal participation has not been repeated.

2024: Shettima takes over

For the 79th UN General Assembly in 2024, Tinubu stayed away from New York and delegated the responsibility to Vice President Kashim Shettima.

Shettima delivered Nigeria’s national statement and participated in the diplomatic engagements surrounding the General Assembly.

2025: Another presidential absence

The same arrangement was repeated at the 80th UNGA in 2025.

Tinubu did not personally attend, while Shettima again represented Nigeria at the high-level gathering.

2026: Third consecutive absence

The pattern has continued at the 81st UN General Assembly.

Tinubu mandated Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to New York, where the Vice President has participated in high-level meetings and delivered Nigeria’s national statement.

The Federal Government has stressed that Nigeria remains fully represented.

Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim, also said the country would retain its position and diplomatic presence at the General Assembly despite Tinubu’s absence. He noted that many countries were represented by vice presidents or foreign ministers.

The argument is therefore not that Nigeria has been absent from UNGA. It has not.

The question is specifically about the President’s personal participation.

The Presidency has provided an explanation.

Information Minister Mohammed Idris said Tinubu is currently on annual leave and that his decision to mandate Shettima to lead the delegation is neither unusual nor a reduction in Nigeria’s diplomatic standing.

A presidential aide, Ademola Osodi, has also rejected suggestions that Tinubu’s absence is connected to an inability to travel to the United States. He pointed out that the President travelled to the US for the 2023 UNGA and on other occasions.

Those explanations establish the government’s position.

But they also leave room for legitimate questions about presidential priorities.

There is no constitutional requirement that Nigeria’s president must personally attend every UN General Assembly.

A vice president can represent the country, deliver its national statement and hold diplomatic meetings. That is precisely what Shettima has done.

But presidential participation offers something different.

UNGA brings together presidents, prime ministers, monarchs and senior representatives from almost every country in the world. Beyond the formal speeches, the gathering provides opportunities for bilateral meetings, informal diplomatic contacts, investment discussions and direct engagement between heads of government.

The question, therefore, is not whether Shettima is capable of representing Nigeria.

It is whether Nigeria gains the same diplomatic opportunities when its president is repeatedly absent.

This is perhaps the most important question.

Tinubu attended UNGA during his first year in office, demonstrating that his administration considered the gathering sufficiently important for the President to participate personally.

But beginning in 2024, the approach changed.

There has been no public indication that Nigeria has abandoned presidential participation in UNGA permanently. Nevertheless, three consecutive absences represent a clear departure from Tinubu’s own practice in 2023 and from the frequent presidential participation seen under previous administrations.

That makes it reasonable to ask whether the change reflects a deliberate diplomatic strategy, competing domestic priorities, scheduling decisions or simply the President’s preference for delegating international engagements.

There is no automatic evidence that Nigeria suffers diplomatic losses every time its president misses UNGA.

Indeed, the Nigerian delegation continues to conduct meetings and promote the country’s interests.

At the 81st session, Shettima has presented Nigeria’s position on issues including reform of the UN Security Council and permanent African representation, while also engaging with international leaders and institutions.

Nevertheless, presidential attendance can provide opportunities that cannot necessarily be replicated by a subordinate representative.

A Nigerian president personally addressing the Assembly can directly place national priorities before the international community, meet counterparts at the highest level and potentially attract greater attention to Nigeria’s diplomatic objectives.

That distinction deserves consideration when assessing the government’s decision.

Nigeria has historically regarded itself as one of Africa’s leading diplomatic voices.

The country has played prominent roles in UN peacekeeping, African diplomacy and campaigns for reform of international institutions.

Nigeria is also currently campaigning for stronger African representation in the UN Security Council, a matter that requires sustained international diplomacy.

At the 81st UNGA, Shettima again pressed Nigeria’s case for permanent African representation.

The question, therefore, is whether the President’s personal presence at such a gathering would strengthen that campaign or whether the current delegation arrangement is sufficient.

Rather than assuming a motive for Tinubu’s absence, several questions can be asked based on the publicly available facts:

Why has the President not personally attended UNGA since 2023?

What specific domestic priorities have taken precedence over personal participation in the annual gathering?

Has the Presidency conducted any assessment of the diplomatic benefits or disadvantages of presidential attendance versus delegation by the Vice President?

What high-level meetings or opportunities have been achieved by the Nigerian delegation during the three sessions Tinubu has missed?

Does repeated delegation represent a deliberate change in Nigeria’s foreign-policy strategy, or is it simply a scheduling decision?

And, importantly, if Nigeria wants a stronger voice in global institutions such as the UN Security Council, does presidential presence at UNGA matter to that objective?

These questions do not establish that Tinubu’s absence is harmful, nor do they establish any hidden reason for it.

They instead concern transparency, diplomatic priorities and the effectiveness of Nigeria’s engagement with the international community.

The historical record shows that Nigeria’s presidents have frequently treated UNGA as an important platform for projecting the country’s voice internationally.

Tinubu personally participated in that tradition in 2023.

Since then, however, he has left the representation of Nigeria at the General Assembly to his Vice President for three consecutive years.

The issue, therefore, is not that Nigeria has been missing from UNGA.

It is that Nigeria’s President has been missing from the gathering since his first appearance in 2023.

Whether that represents a pragmatic delegation of responsibility or a missed opportunity for direct presidential diplomacy is ultimately a question that the administration can answer through its stated priorities and the measurable outcomes of Nigeria’s participation.

For a country that has historically sought to position itself as a leading African voice, the question is worth asking: what does Nigeria gain when its President is not in the room and what, if anything, does the country lose?