Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), has criticised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to begin a three-week leave in Europe.
He argued that the timing raises questions about the government’s priorities amid Nigeria’s economic and security challenges.
Tinubu departed Abuja on August 30 for Europe as part of his annual leave in a statement released by Bayo Onanuga, the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, while the trip is a working vacation, with London listed as his first destination.
The Presidency said Tinubu is expected to return to Nigeria after the break and resume campaign activities ahead of the 2027 election.
Obi, however, said the President’s absence was difficult to justify while Nigerians were struggling with high food and transportation costs, insecurity and limited access to education.
He cited reports that about 600 people—predominantly women, children and elderly residents—were abducted during Juma’at prayers in Niger State, describing the incident as another indication of the urgency facing the country.
The NDC Presidential candidate also questioned reported government spending on presidential travel.
He said reports showed that expenditure on presidential trips and related expenses amounted to approximately ₦37.64 billion between June 2023 and April 2026, while Tinubu spent about 261 days outside Nigeria during the period.
Obi further compared the reported travel expenditure with what he described as the release of only ₦36 million to the Federal Ministry of Health in 2025, despite a capital allocation of ₦218 billion.
He also argued that the figures, if accurate, reflected a serious imbalance between spending on official travel and investment in essential public services.
“Leadership is about priorities,” Obi said, insisting that the President should be more focused on tackling insecurity, poverty, healthcare and education than repeatedly travelling abroad while citizens face worsening hardship.
The Presidency’s explanation presents the trip differently. Officials have described it as the President’s annual leave and a working vacation rather than an abandonment of government duties.
The administration may also argue that presidential travel can serve diplomatic, economic and strategic purposes, although the statement announcing the current leave did not provide a detailed breakdown of its activities or costs.
Obi’s criticism also extended to Nigeria’s approach to tourism. He said the President should spend more time visiting destinations such as Kano, Katsina, Sokoto, Cross River, Bauchi and Ebonyi, using the office to promote Nigeria’s cultural and natural attractions to domestic and international audiences.
According to Obi, greater domestic tourism could create jobs and stimulate the hospitality, transportation, agriculture, entertainment, crafts and small-business sectors.
He argued that encouraging Nigerians and foreign visitors to explore the country would help retain wealth locally, attract investment and generate foreign exchange.
The dispute reflects a broader political argument ahead of the 2027 elections. Obi is presenting the controversy as evidence that Nigeria needs a govt that places citizens’ welfare and domestic development above official travel and overseas engagements.
The Tinubu administration, meanwhile, has maintained that the President’s leave is legitimate and compatible with the responsibilities of his office.
The travel-spending figures, the number of days the President spent outside Nigeria, the health-fund release and the reported Niger State abductions were claims cited by Obi and should be independently verified.
The central question raised by the controversy is not whether a president is entitled to annual leave, but whether the timing, cost and purpose of such travel are sufficiently transparent—and whether they are consistent with the priorities of a country facing severe economic and security pressures.