AAC Sues Tinubu Over Extended European Vacation, Seeks Court Interpretation of Section 145
The African Action Congress (AAC) has filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking judicial interpretation of Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution over President Bola Tinubu’s extended vacation in Europe.
The party alleges that Tinubu proceeded on vacation without transmitting the written declaration required by the Constitution to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to enable Vice President Kashim Shettima to act as President.
The suit was filed on Monday, September 28, 2026, by AAC National Legal Adviser, Inibehe Effiong, on behalf of the party.
Named as defendants are President Tinubu, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, and the National Assembly.
No hearing date had been fixed as of the time the suit was filed.
At the centre of the case is the interpretation of Section 145(1), which provides that whenever the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he is required to transmit a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker of the House.
Upon such transmission, the Vice President assumes the functions of President in an acting capacity until the President transmits another declaration indicating his return and availability to resume his duties.
Section 145(2) further provides that where the President is unable or fails to transmit the declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly may, through a simple majority resolution of each chamber, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President in an acting capacity until the President indicates his availability to resume his duties.
Relying on the provisions, the AAC is asking the court to determine whether Tinubu could constitutionally proceed on vacation without first transmitting the written declaration contemplated under Section 145(1).
The party is also asking the court to determine whether the National Assembly violated Section 145(2) by failing to convene and pass a resolution authorising Shettima to act as President after Tinubu had remained away for more than 21 days.
The AAC wants the court to declare that a President proceeding on vacation “must compulsorily transmit a written declaration” to the Senate President and Speaker before leaving office, allowing the Vice President to exercise presidential functions in an acting capacity.
It is further seeking a declaration that Tinubu’s alleged failure to make such a transmission before embarking on his European vacation from August 30 to September 28 was unconstitutional, unlawful and inconsistent with his oath of office.
The party also wants the court to declare the National Assembly’s alleged failure to invoke Section 145(2) after more than 21 days of presidential absence unlawful and unconstitutional.
In addition, the AAC is seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Tinubu from proceeding on future vacations without first transmitting the constitutionally prescribed declaration to the Senate President and Speaker.
The legal challenge followed Tinubu’s departure from Abuja on August 30 for what the Presidency announced as a three-week vacation forming part of his annual leave.
The State House described the trip as a working vacation and said the President would initially travel to London.
After spending about a week in London, Tinubu travelled to Paris, where the Presidency said he continued with official engagements, including meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron and businessman Vincent Bolloré.
On September 21, the Presidency announced that the working vacation had been extended by “a few days” and said Tinubu would return to Nigeria at the weekend.
The State House maintained that Tinubu remained in contact with Nigeria and continued directing government affairs while abroad.
It cited, among other actions, the President’s directive for an independent investigation into the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners following their detention by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps.
The Presidency also said Shettima had been delegated to represent Tinubu at certain official functions, including the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The AAC’s case, however, centres on whether such delegation of specific assignments or Tinubu’s continued performance of official functions remotely can substitute for the written declaration expressly provided for under Section 145 when a President proceeds on vacation.
That question remains before the Federal High Court and has not yet been judicially determined.
In its supporting affidavit, the AAC referred to Tinubu’s initial three-week vacation and its subsequent extension, arguing that the constitutional mechanism governing temporary presidential absence ought to have been activated.
The party also cited activities involving Senate President Akpabio during the period, including his trip to Italy, where he said he visited the Prayer Ground of St. Padre Pio in San Giovanni Rotondo to pray for Nigeria.
The suit asks the court to examine not only Tinubu’s actions but also the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly when a President fails to transmit the required declaration within the 21-day period.
The case therefore places before the court questions concerning the constitutional relationship between the President, Vice President and National Assembly during a temporary presidential absence.
It also seeks clarification on whether describing a presidential trip as a “working vacation”, while the President continues to perform some official duties from abroad, affects the application of Section 145.
The Constitution expressly states that the written declaration applies “whenever the President is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office.”
The Presidency has maintained that throughout Tinubu’s absence, he continued to perform his official responsibilities from abroad while delegating certain assignments to senior government officials.
The AAC is asking the court to determine whether those arrangements meet the constitutional requirements governing a President who proceeds on vacation.
