By Toba Alabi.
The annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has become one of the most visible events in contemporary international diplomacy. Every September, the world’s political leadership converges on New York for the General Debate and a wide range of high-level meetings, bilateral engagements and diplomatic activities. The 81st session in 2026 is particularly significant, with the General Debate scheduled for 22–28 September and high-level meetings addressing sustainable development, climate action, sea-level rise, pandemic preparedness, racial discrimination and nuclear disarmament.
Against this background, the decision of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu not to attend the 2026 UNGA in person, while delegating Vice President Kashim Shettima to represent Nigeria, has generated considerable political commentary in Nigeria. The debate has been further complicated by allegations concerning the possible reasons for the President’s absence. The Presidency has stated that President Tinubu extended his working vacation and that Vice President Shettima would represent him and deliver Nigeria’s national statement at the General Assembly.
The controversy provides an opportunity to examine a broader question that goes beyond the personality of any particular Nigerian president: what is the actual significance of presidential attendance at UNGA, and how should Nigeria balance diplomatic representation, national interests and the cost of participation?
This paper argues that presidential attendance at UNGA is diplomatically valuable but should not be treated as an absolute constitutional or political obligation. Conversely, presidential absence should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of indifference to international diplomacy or as proof of any particular allegation. The appropriate standard should be the effectiveness of Nigeria’s representation and the measurable outcomes derived from its participation.
Understanding the Significance of UNGA
The United Nations General Assembly occupies a unique position in the international system. Unlike the Security Council, whose permanent members exercise veto power, the General Assembly comprises all 193 UN member states, each with an equal vote. The UN describes it as the principal policy-making organ of the organisation and a forum for multilateral discussion of the broad range of international issues covered by the UN Charter.
The equality of votes, however, should not be confused with equality of influence. States differ enormously in military capability, economic power, financial contributions, diplomatic networks and geopolitical importance. Consequently, the formal principle of sovereign equality coexists with a highly unequal distribution of material power.
This contradiction is central to understanding UNGA. The General Assembly provides smaller and developing states with an important platform for expressing their interests, building coalitions and influencing international discourse. Yet the ability to transform resolutions and declarations into concrete international action is often constrained by the wider structure of global power.
UNGA should therefore neither be dismissed as a mere diplomatic jamboree nor romanticised as an institution in which all states exercise equivalent influence.
Why Presidential Attendance Matters
There are several reasons why the physical presence of a national leader at UNGA can be important.
First, the General Debate provides heads of government with an opportunity to present their countries’ positions directly to the international community. A presidential address can communicate national priorities on security, development, trade, climate change, international peace and reform of the international system.
Second, the concentration of political leaders in New York creates opportunities for bilateral diplomacy. A president can meet other heads of state and government without having to arrange separate journeys to their respective capitals. Such encounters can facilitate negotiations, strengthen political relationships and create opportunities for economic and strategic cooperation.
Third, the presence of a president carries symbolic value. International diplomacy is partly about communication, signalling and visibility. The physical presence of a country’s highest political authority can signal that particular issues are regarded as important by that government.
The 2026 programme illustrates the breadth of issues available for high-level engagement. In addition to the General Debate, the programme includes meetings on climate action, the right to development, sea-level rise, pandemic preparedness, racial discrimination and nuclear disarmament.
For a country such as Nigeria, with its population, economic significance, security challenges and longstanding role in African diplomacy, participation in these discussions is clearly relevant.
Attendance, However, Is Not the Same as Effectiveness
The importance of attendance should not lead to the conclusion that only the president can effectively represent Nigeria.
International diplomacy routinely involves delegation. Presidents and prime ministers cannot attend every international meeting personally. Vice presidents, foreign ministers, ambassadors and other senior officials regularly represent governments at international forums.
The Nigerian Presidency itself has demonstrated this practice. Vice President Shettima has represented President Tinubu at major international and regional meetings. There is consequently nothing inherently abnormal about a vice president representing a president at an international meeting.
Indeed, in the present case, the Vice President is not merely attending as a symbolic substitute. The Presidency has stated that Shettima is representing the President at the 81st UNGA and will deliver Nigeria’s national statement.
The important question, therefore, is not simply who occupies the seat, but whether Nigeria’s diplomatic interests are effectively represented.
The Problem of Politicising Presidential Absence
Presidential absence becomes controversial when political actors attribute motives to it without sufficient evidence.
Political opponents have the right to question governmental decisions. They also have the right to demand explanations concerning the conduct of public officials. However, allegations should not automatically be converted into established facts.
The present controversy demonstrates the danger of allowing international diplomacy to become an extension of domestic partisan politics. The absence of President Tinubu from UNGA does not, by itself, establish the reason for his absence. The official explanation is that he extended his working vacation, while the Presidency has described some allegations concerning his non-attendance as baseless.
Neither the official explanation nor political allegations should be accepted uncritically merely because they come from politically interested actors. The appropriate scholarly approach is to distinguish documented facts from political claims and interpretations.
This distinction is particularly important in foreign policy analysis because international events can easily become instruments of domestic political mobilisation.
Nigeria and the African Diplomatic Space
Nigeria’s role at the United Nations extends beyond its immediate national interests. Historically, Nigeria has presented itself as an important voice in African affairs and has frequently used multilateral institutions to advance continental concerns.
Nigeria’s diplomatic importance derives from several factors, including its population, economy, military capabilities, diplomatic history and involvement in African peace and security. It has participated actively in African peacekeeping and has historically supported African positions on issues ranging from decolonisation and apartheid to development and international institutional reform.
Nevertheless, Nigeria should avoid assuming that it speaks automatically for every African country.
Africa is not a single political entity. African states have different economic structures, security interests, political systems and foreign-policy priorities. Nigeria can exercise continental leadership without claiming exclusive authority to represent the continent.
The appropriate objective should therefore be to build African coalitions around issues where interests converge.
The UNGA and the Structure of Global Power
A major limitation of UNGA lies in the wider architecture of the United Nations.
The General Assembly may operate according to the principle of sovereign equality, but the Security Council reflects a very different distribution of power. The five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — possess veto power over substantive Security Council decisions.
The history of the appointment of the UN Secretary-General provides a striking illustration. In 1996, the Security Council considered the reappointment of Boutros Boutros-Ghali. A draft resolution recommending his second term received 14 votes in favour and one against. Because the negative vote came from a permanent member, the recommendation failed. UN records confirm that the United States subsequently exercised the decisive veto.
This episode demonstrates an important structural reality: formal equality within the General Assembly does not eliminate the unequal distribution of power within the international system.
This does not make UNGA irrelevant. Rather, it demonstrates the limitations within which it operates.
The Economics of UNGA Participation
Another issue deserving greater attention is the cost of participation.
Nigeria’s delegation to international conferences should not become unnecessarily large. The presence of numerous government officials, political actors, advisers and other participants can create substantial expenditure without necessarily producing corresponding diplomatic benefits.
The relevant question, however, should not simply be whether Nigeria spends money attending UNGA. It should be whether the expenditure produces measurable value.
A useful framework would require every major Nigerian delegation to identify:
the national objectives to be pursued;
the officials required to achieve those objectives;
the bilateral meetings considered strategically important;
the economic and diplomatic opportunities being pursued;
the agreements or commitments expected; and
the outcomes achieved after the delegation returns home.
Such an approach would transform UNGA participation from an annual ritual into a component of a measurable foreign-policy strategy.
Tangible and Intangible Benefits
One difficulty in evaluating UNGA is that not all diplomatic benefits are immediately measurable.
An investment agreement may be quantified. A loan, trade deal or infrastructure commitment can also be measured. But diplomatic relationships, political goodwill, coalition building and international visibility are more difficult to quantify.
For example, a meeting between two presidents may not produce an immediate agreement but may create the political relationship necessary for an agreement several months later.
This means that judging UNGA solely by the number of agreements signed during the week would be inadequate.
At the same time, intangible benefits should not become an excuse for unlimited expenditure. Governments should distinguish genuine diplomatic engagement from ceremonial participation.
The objective should be strategic participation rather than mere attendance.
Presidential Attendance versus Delegated Representation
The debate can therefore be framed around two competing principles.
The first is the value of presidential presence. A president can personally negotiate, build relationships, make political commitments and signal national priorities.
The second is the principle of institutional delegation. A competent vice president, foreign minister or senior diplomatic team can represent the country where presidential presence is unnecessary.
Neither principle should be treated as absolute.
There will be circumstances in which presidential attendance is strategically desirable. There will equally be circumstances in which delegation is reasonable.
The decision should depend on the agenda, Nigeria’s national interests, the international political environment, the importance of bilateral engagements and the expected diplomatic returns.
UNGA and the Question of National Priorities
Nigeria’s participation should also be connected to its domestic development priorities.
International diplomacy becomes meaningful when it contributes to domestic objectives. Nigeria requires foreign investment, technology, market access, security cooperation, development finance, diplomatic support and international partnerships.
Consequently, the success of Nigeria’s UNGA participation should ultimately be assessed by what happens after the conference.
Did the country secure new investment?
Did diplomatic engagements produce progress on security cooperation?
Did Nigeria advance its position on reform of the international system?
Did it strengthen African cooperation?
Did it attract development partnerships?
Did it obtain commitments relating to climate finance, infrastructure, health or technology?
These are more meaningful questions than whether the president personally stood behind the Nigerian nameplate in the General Assembly chamber.
The Need for Reform of Nigeria’s UNGA Strategy
Nigeria should consider developing a more systematic UNGA strategy.
The Federal Government could establish a small strategic committee several months before the General Assembly to identify Nigeria’s priorities. Ministries, departments and agencies should then be assigned specific objectives.
The delegation should be selected according to those objectives rather than political proximity.
After the meeting, the government should publish a report indicating the major engagements undertaken and the commitments obtained, subject where necessary to diplomatic confidentiality.
Such a system would improve accountability and reduce the perception that international conferences are opportunities for political tourism.
It would also make it easier for Nigerians to distinguish between legitimate diplomatic expenditure and waste.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding President Tinubu’s absence from the 81st United Nations General Assembly provides an opportunity to reconsider how Nigeria approaches international diplomacy.
UNGA remains an important institution. Its General Debate provides a unique global platform, while the concentration of world leaders creates opportunities for bilateral diplomacy, coalition building and economic engagement. The 2026 programme itself demonstrates that the General Assembly is dealing with issues directly relevant to Nigeria and the developing world.
Nevertheless, presidential attendance should not be elevated into an absolute measure of commitment to international diplomacy. A president may be represented by a vice president or another senior official without the country’s diplomatic interests necessarily suffering.
At the same time, repeated presidential absence can legitimately generate questions about priorities, particularly when important opportunities for direct engagement are available. Those questions should be answered through evidence rather than political speculation.
The fundamental issue is therefore not whether President Tinubu is physically present at UNGA. It is whether Nigeria is present strategically, represented competently and returning home with meaningful diplomatic, economic and political outcomes.
Nigeria should attend UNGA, but attendance should be purposeful. Its delegations should be lean, professionally selected and driven by clearly defined national objectives. The country should seek to convert diplomatic visibility into concrete partnerships while recognising that some benefits of diplomacy are necessarily long term and intangible.
Ultimately, the General Assembly represents both the possibilities and limitations of contemporary multilateralism. It offers sovereign equality in a world still characterised by unequal power. It provides developing countries with a global platform while leaving decisive areas of international politics heavily influenced by the major powers.
Nigeria should therefore neither overestimate nor underestimate UNGA. The objective should not be simply to be seen at the United Nations; it should be to use the United Nations effectively in pursuit of Nigeria’s national and African interests.
Toba Alabi is Professor of Political Science, Defence and Security Studies (08036787582).
