By Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, Ph. D
In the last few days, there has been a lot of hype in Nigeria over the ongoing annual meeting of the United Nations, especially about the decision of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s to delegate His Excellency, the Vice President, Sen Kashim Shettima to represent the country at the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.
As everything in Nigeria, this has generated considerable public interest, oftentimes heated debates in the country. Some Nigerians have expressed concern that the President Tinubu’s absence at the UNGA represents a diplomatic setback, while many other Nigerians have argued that the Vice -President or any other senior official of the Federal Government of Nigeria can adequately represent the country.
This debate is normal and healthy in a democracy. However, before reaching hasty conclusions on this matter, it is important that we understand what the United Nations General Assembly actually requires, what international practice looks like, and how other countries – including some of the most powerful countries in the world – handle Presidential or Prime-Ministerial attendance.
Beyond the political noise lies a simple question: what does the UN actually require, and what does international practice permit? The purpose of this intervention is to correct the impression that a President must personally attend the UN General Assembly every year, so that we can put Nigeria’s experience in proper historical perspective.
Given the topicality of this issue, we need to explore and separate the facts from the fiction. In the first place, one of the most important points to note is that, there is no rule of the United Nations Organisation categorically requiring the President or Prime Minister of every member state to personally attend the General Assembly every year.
According to United Nations rules, a country can be represented by its delegation, and the delegation may be led by the Head of State, Head of Government, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Permanent Representative to the United Nations or any other authorised senior official.
Secondly, it is true, the United Nations General Debate is undoubtedly one of the most important annual gatherings in international diplomacy. It brings together world leaders and senior representatives from around the world to discuss war and peace, international security, development, climate change, trade, global health, terrorism, poverty, technology and other matters of international concern.
But personal attendance by a President or Prime Minister of a country has never been an absolute requirement. Infact, recent research covering the United Nations General Debate from 1946 to 2019 showed that out of the 9,959 speakers at the United Nations General Assembly, (UNGA), only 2,179 – about 22 percent – were national political leaders. In most other instances, Foreign ministers, diplomats and other senior Government representatives constituted the majority of delegates at the UNGA.
A more recent investigation extending the data to 2022, showed that physical presence of Heads of State and Government at the UNGA constituted approximately only 24 percent of speakers. The pattern was the same even during the Cold War period, when the General Debate was dominated particularly by foreign ministers and representatives of national UN missions. All these demonstrates that, the practice of delegating representation at the General Assembly is neither new nor peculiar to Nigeria.
The question is, what happens in other countries? Let us now explore some of the world’s most influential countries. Russia provides perhaps one of the clearest examples. President Vladimir Putin has not been a regular annual participant at the United Nations General Assembly. In fact, according to available records, when he attended the 70th General Assembly in 2015, that was his first appearance at the UN General Assembly in ten years. He had previously attended in 2000, 2003 and 2005. But, throughout the decade 2005 – 2014, Russia was represented by senior officials, particularly Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Let us remember that Russia is not a small or insignificant country in global politics. Indeed, Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Similarly, China provides another important contemporary example. President Xi Jinping has not treated annual personal attendance at the General Assembly as obligatory. China has frequently been represented at the highest level by other senior officials. Again, even this year, 2026, Xi Jinping is not going to attend the current 81st General Assembly. In his place, just as in the case of Nigeria, Vice-President Han Zheng will be representing China.
Importantly, just as the case of Russia, China is not an ordinary member of the international system. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and one of the world’s largest economies and most influential powers.
Again, another country we often refer to as the largest democracy is India. Yet, India too has followed a mixed pattern. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has attended the General Assembly personally on a number of occasions, but India has also been represented by its Foreign Minister and other senior government officials on a number of other occasions. Interestingly. Modi is not personally attending the 81st General Assembly in 2026.
Other countries that have not ritualised the attendance of the United Nations General Assembly include the United Kingdom, another Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council. It is on record that, the former Britain’s Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak did not personally attend the 2023 General Assembly. It is also known that, the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, on a number of occasions did not personally attend the high-level General Debate. What all these cases show is that, absence from UNGA by Presidents and or Prime Ministers does not automatically mean absence of the country from the United Nations system.
Let us now look at the current 2026 UN General Assembly. In fact, the situation at the 81st General Assembly as at September 2026 makes this point even clearer. According to available records, several prominent world leaders are not physically attending this year’s General Assembly. These include Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Their countries are nevertheless being represented by senior officials.
While the United Nations describes the 81st session as a gathering intended to bring world leaders together to address global cooperation, sustainable development, peace and equality, still, the organisation does not require every national leader to be physically present. This year’s General Assembly therefore obviously provides a useful illustration of an established diplomatic practice, that, countries can participate fully in the General Assembly through authorised representatives even when their Presidents or Prime Ministers are not physically present.
Then, the next logical question is, what about Nigeria? Here, it is important first of all to correct a popular misconception. It is not correct to say that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has never attended the United Nations General Assembly.
President Tinubu personally attended the 78th General Assembly in September 2023 and addressed the General Debate. Since then, Vice-President Kashim Shettima has been representing the President and led the Nigerian delegation to the 79th, 80th and now 81st sessions. Again, for the 81st session in 2026, President Tinubu formally mandated Vice-President Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation. The delegation includes senior government officials and governors. His Excellency, Kashim Shettima is expected to deliver Nigeria’s national statement and participate in high-level meetings and bilateral engagements.
Given all these, it is an inaccurate description to say that, Nigeria is “absent” from the United Nations General Assembly. To the contrary,
Nigeria is present, fully. Of course, the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not personally present, but the Vice-President is adequately representing him and the country. That distinction matters.
We may still ask the question, does personal attendance of the Presidents at the UN General Assembly matter? The answer is yes, it matters. It can be argued that, the fact that Presidential attendance is not compulsory does not mean that it is unimportant. It is important for a number of reasons. For instance, there are significant diplomatic advantages to having a President or Prime Minister physically present in New York during UNGA week.
Clearly, the General Assembly provides visiting leaders unique opportunities for bilateral meetings with other Heads of Government, discussions with the UN Secretary-General, interaction with international financial institutions, investment diplomacy, engagement with multinational corporations and consultations on regional and global security.
Certainly, for a country such as Nigeria – which is regarded as a major African power and has historically played important roles in African diplomacy and peace keeping – both at sub-regional and continental levels – physical presence of the President can have considerable symbolic and diplomatic value. The President can also use the occasion to articulate the country’s foreign-policy priorities directly before the international community. All these mean, Nigerians would always like to see their President attending UNGA personally. That is a legitimate patriotic disposition. Yet, even then, it is different from saying that the United Nations requires him to attend personally every United Nations General Assembly, (UNGA).
Unfortunately because of the current political climate in Nigeria, and with the commencement of Presidential campaign, issues that ordinarily should be straight forward, end up being politicised with huge dose of propaganda. As a result, much of the current debate has become confused and distorted, obviously for this same reason.
Lets look at the facts again. There are two different questions, but the two questions are oftentimes deliberately treated as one. The first question is: is President Tinubu legally or diplomatically required to personally attend every General Assembly of the UNO every year? Based on both historical and contemporary records and tradition, the answer is NO!. Then, comes the second question: would Nigeria derive diplomatic, political or economic benefits from having its President personally attend the General Assembly more regularly?
That is a legitimate subject for debate, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions based on their assessment and understanding of Nigeria’s approach to governance and engagements in International politics and diplomacy. However, the two questions should not be confused, because they are not the same.
It is important to stress the point that representation by a Vice-President, Prime Minister or Foreign Minister of any member country does not mean that the country has abandoned the United Nations. Diplomacy routinely operates through authorised representatives. Indeed, as we noted earlier on, historical records of the United Nations General Assembly shows that foreign ministers and diplomatic representatives have traditionally played an enormous role in presenting national positions. The bottomline is that representation is not absence.
Additionally, the quality of representation also matters.
A Vice-President who has been specifically mandated by the President, supported by the Foreign Minister and accompanied by senior officials can participate in the General Debate, hold bilateral meetings and advance national positions. In Nigeria’s case, the Federal Government has stated that Vice-President Shettima has a full presidential mandate to represent the country at the 2026 General Assembly. In this case, it should not be confused with a failure to participate in the UN system. It is well known that in all his previous appearances at the United Nations General Assembly, Vice President Kashim Shettima, has demonstrated uncommon abilities, in his composure, effective speech delivery and statesmanship, with full understanding of international diplomatic etiquettes.
What other questions should Nigerians therefore ask? In my view, dispassionate national conversation should move beyond the simple question of whether the President was physically present in New York. The more useful questions we can raise are:
What objectives has Nigeria set for its participation in this year’s General Assembly?
What bilateral meetings are being held? What investment, trade and development opportunities are being pursued? What is Nigeria’s position on UN Security Council reform? What is Nigeria doing to advance African interests? What diplomatic outcomes will emerge from the Nigerian delegation’s participation?
And, finally, what measurable and deliverable benefits will Nigeria derive from its participation at UNGA? To me and to most discerning minds, these are the substantive questions that occupy our minds, rather than simply counting whether the President’s aircraft landed in New York.
Concluding Remarks
The United Nations General Assembly remains one of the most important institutions of multilateral diplomacy. Presidential attendance can be valuable. It can provide visibility, direct engagement and opportunities for high-level diplomacy. But personal attendance of the President is not a mandatory annual requirement, and international practice demonstrates considerable variation.
Presidents and Prime Ministers of major powers – including Russia, China, India, the United Kingdom and France – have at different times have sent high level representatives to the General Assembly sessions while their countries continued to reap the benefits through its senior representatives.
The historical evidence is also equally very clear: for much of the UN’s existence, foreign ministers and diplomats, rather than Presidents and Prime Ministers, were the dominant voices in the General Debate.
Therefore, Nigerians should distinguish between Presidential absence and national absence.
President Tinubu’s decision to delegate Vice President, Sen Kashim Shettima to the three consecutive UNGA sessions since 2024 may legitimately be debated in terms of diplomatic strategy, symbolism and national interest. But it is factually inaccurate to suggest that Nigeria is thereby absent from the United Nations General Assembly or that international diplomatic practice requires President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to attend personally every year. In any case, the presence of His Excellency, Vice President, Sen Kashim Shettima, the Hon Minister of Foreign Affairs and leading Diplomats and Administrators in New York has clearly served the purpose.
The more constructive question for Nigerians should not simply be: “Was the President in New York?” Rather: “What did Nigeria achieve at the United Nations – and what tangible diplomatic, political and economic benefits will Nigerians derive from that participation?” This is the standard by which our international engagement should ultimately be judged.
Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, is a Professor of Political Science
