The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has urged the Senate to examine the constitutional implications of President Bola Tinubu’s continued stay outside Nigeria.

The group made the call in a statement signed on Wednesday by its National Coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, following comments by Senate President Godswill Akpabio defending Tinubu’s continued exercise of presidential powers from abroad.

Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for a three-week working vacation in Europe. The State House announced on September 21 that he had extended the trip by a few days and was expected to return at the weekend. It also said the President had continued directing government affairs while abroad.

Akpabio, speaking in Akwa Ibom, said Tinubu remained in charge and that there was no vacancy in the Presidency because the President could continue to perform his duties from abroad.

The Senate President argued that modern technology had made it possible for the President to communicate and issue directives without being physically present in Nigeria.

But HURIWA rejected that argument, saying the issue was not whether Tinubu could communicate from abroad but whether the constitutional procedure for presidential absence had been followed.

According to the group, Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution provides a specific process for situations where the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office. The provision requires a written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

HURIWA noted that Section 145(2) also provides for action by the National Assembly if the President fails or is unable to transmit the declaration within 21 days.

It said the National Assembly may, by a resolution supported by a simple majority in each chamber, mandate the Vice-President to perform the functions of President as Acting President until the President formally communicates his availability to resume his duties.

HURIWA argued that the constitutional provision does not make the procedure dependent on whether the President has access to the internet or can participate in meetings remotely.

“The Constitution does not make the constitutional procedure for presidential absence dependent on whether a President has access to the internet, can make telephone calls, attend meetings virtually or issue instructions from another country,” the group said.

The organisation also took issue with Akpabio’s reported assertion that he was the only person who could declare a vacancy.

HURIWA said the statement did not accurately reflect the provisions of Section 145, arguing that the Constitution does not grant the Senate President unilateral authority to determine whether the constitutional procedure on presidential absence has been triggered.

The group therefore challenged Akpabio to identify the constitutional provision that gives him exclusive authority to determine whether there is a presidential vacancy or whether the constitutional process applies.

HURIWA further urged senators to examine Akpabio’s conduct in relation to his constitutional responsibilities as Senate President.

It pointed to Section 50(2)(c), which provides for the removal of the Senate President through a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members of the Senate.

The group said senators who believe Akpabio had failed in his constitutional responsibilities should consider the procedure provided by the Constitution.

It added that the controversy should not be reduced to a dispute over Tinubu personally but should focus on the application of constitutional provisions governing presidential absence.

“This is not about President Tinubu personally. It is about whether Nigeria is governed by constitutional provisions or by political interpretations of those provisions,” HURIWA said.

The Presidency has maintained that Tinubu remains in charge while abroad. In announcing the extension of his working vacation, the State House said the President had continued to direct government affairs, including ordering an independent investigation into the deaths of 37 illegal miners in Minna, Niger State.

The controversy has nevertheless continued, with other political actors also raising questions about the application of Section 145. The African Democratic Congress, for instance, has separately questioned whether the constitutional procedure on the transfer of presidential functions has been followed.

HURIWA consequently called on the National Assembly to determine the issue within the framework of the Constitution and provide Nigerians with clarity on whether the requirements of Section 145 have been satisfied.

The group urged lawmakers to place constitutional provisions above partisan considerations and ensure that the powers of government remain subject to the Constitution.