23 Days Abroad in January: Nigerians React as Tinubu’s Foreign Trips Spark Debate

The frequent foreign travels of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have sparked renewed debate across Nigeria, with citizens expressing sharply divided views over the impact of the trips amid worsening economic hardship and insecurity.
MetroNews reports that the President spent 23 days outside Nigeria in January 2026, having departed the country on December 28, 2025, for Europe.
Tinubu spent nine days in France for an end-of-year break before travelling to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where he attended the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week (ADSW) 2026 for seven days. He later proceeded to Turkey on a state visit, spending an additional six days before returning to Nigeria.
The prolonged absence has drawn criticism from several quarters, including former Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, who faulted the President’s frequent travels at a time of heightened insecurity and economic distress.
Obi noted that January traditionally sets the tone for governance challenges in a new year, lamenting that conditions in the country appeared to be worsening despite the President’s overseas engagements.
A cross-section of Nigerians interviewed expressed mixed reactions, with many questioning the tangible benefits of the trips.
Divine Akor described the President’s 23-day absence within a single month as “outrageous,” particularly amid rising inflation, hunger and insecurity.
“Supporters will say it is for economic diplomacy and investor engagement, but these are mere gimmicks unless there is verifiable evidence,” Akor said. “Diplomacy without results is just glorified frequent flying.”
He questioned the lack of visible foreign investments, job creation and economic relief, arguing that the trips appeared more like personal vacations or medical visits than strategic engagements.
Similarly, Michael Ameh criticised the President for urging Nigerians to make sacrifices while, in his view, failing to lead by example.
“Leadership in crisis demands presence, urgency and empathy,” Ameh said. “Excessive travel during national hardship looks like detachment, not strategy.”
He challenged the President to demonstrate measurable outcomes from the trips, including increased investment, improved infrastructure, reduced inflation and better living standards.
On his part, Paul Igbashangev said Tinubu appeared to be “jet-setting more than governing,” questioning the cost of the travels and their relevance to everyday Nigerians.
“We have pressing issues at home — insecurity, economic hardship, infrastructure decay,” he said. “Show us the agreements, the partnerships, the results.”
Others, however, offered a more nuanced view. Augustine Oyiwona acknowledged public scepticism but argued that foreign trips were not inherently wrong if they delivered tangible outcomes.
“Debt talks, trade deals, energy cooperation and security partnerships often require face-to-face diplomacy,” he said, citing recent improvements in Nigeria–US security cooperation as a possible benefit.
Also defending the President’s travels, Abdulkadir Hassan said international engagement was a core responsibility of the presidency.
He noted that Tinubu’s participation in ADSW 2026 provided opportunities for Nigeria to attract renewable energy investment and foster sustainable development partnerships. Hassan also highlighted agreements signed during the Turkey visit, including deals on defence cooperation, trade, diaspora policy, education, media and diplomacy.
“It may look excessive to some, but it is imperative for a country like Nigeria to strengthen economic, security and diplomatic ties,” he said.
As public debate continues, many Nigerians agree on one point: foreign trips must translate into visible economic gains, improved security and better living conditions at home for them to be justified.