Media adviser to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Paul Ibe, has accused the Presidency of cultivating a troubling habit of withholding key details about President Bola Tinubu’s foreign trips, particularly his expected date of return.

Ibe’s criticism followed the announcement of Tinubu’s planned state visit to the Republic of Turkey, described by the Presidency as a multi-day diplomatic engagement aimed at deepening bilateral ties. The trip, according to presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga, is designed to strengthen cooperation in security, education, social development, innovation and aviation, while also expanding collaboration in finance, communication, trade and investment.

The Presidency further disclosed that the visit would feature high-level meetings between Nigerian and Turkish officials and the signing of several memoranda of understanding. These agreements are expected to cover areas such as scientific research, energy, technical cooperation, media and communications, military cooperation and protocol, among others.

However, the official statement stopped short of specifying when Tinubu would return to Nigeria, stating only that he would be back “at the conclusion of the visit.” That omission drew immediate fire from Ibe, who took to his X (formerly Twitter) handle to question what he described as a “new trend” in presidential communications.

Ibe asked why the Presidency now routinely fails to indicate the President’s return date whenever he travels abroad, suggesting that such opacity undermines public accountability. He argued that Nigerians are entitled to know how long their leader will be out of the country, especially when key decisions and governance responsibilities hinge on his availability.

In a pointed, sarcastic remark, Ibe went further, implying that the open-ended nature of the itinerary could allow for unofficial detours. He suggested that the lack of a fixed return date might be to determine whether “a few days in France to lounge and drink Pina Colada with the French squad” could be added to the schedule, a jab clearly aimed at past controversies over Tinubu’s foreign stopovers.

The episode has reignited debate over transparency in the Presidency’s handling of the President’s health, movements and time spent outside the country. Critics argue that precise travel information is a basic requirement in a democracy, while supporters of the administration insist that diplomatic flexibility sometimes necessitates open-ended itineraries.