The recent discussions on President Tinubu’s overseas trip have ignited conversations about his observance of constitutional regulations. Lawyer and public affairs analyst Daniel Bwala has shed light on the issue, stressing that the President did not breach any laws during his personal visit abroad.
Bwala highlighted that Sections 145–146 of the Constitution state that power should only transfer to the Vice President if the President is absent for over 21 consecutive days because of vacation or incapacity to carry out duties.
He argued that President Tinubu’s trip did not surpass this duration, and even if he was on official duty for a prolonged time, they would still regard him as leading and fulfilling his presidential responsibilities.
Bwala raised doubts about the idea that the President would no longer be in charge during an extended period of official duty, saying, “If the President is on executive duty that requires him to visit 100 countries and will last for nine months, are you implying that during this official duty period, the President has stopped being in charge or the President of the country?”
This explanation seeks to offer a more comprehensive grasp of the constitutional regulations concerning presidential absences and official duties, dispelling misunderstandings and misinformation.
Watch the interview here. Start at 13:45 minutes.