Tinubu Goes to Makkah to Pray for Nigeria. But Who Is Governing the Country?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a president undertaking a religious pilgrimage. The problem arises when the language of prayer and national renewal appears increasingly detached from the daily realities of citizens struggling with electricity shortages, economic pressure and declining confidence in public institutions.

President Bola Tinubu's decision to travel to Makkah for Umrah has generated questions about the relationship between presidential responsibility and the worsening frustrations of ordinary Nigerians. According to the State House announcement of 28 October, the president was travelling to undertake the Islamic religious exercise and pray for Nigeria's peace, unity, stability and progress. The Presidency said he was expected to return the following week after completing the pilgrimage. The trip is a personal and religious matter, and there is no reason to suggest that a Nigerian president should be prevented from practising his faith. But when a country is experiencing serious economic and infrastructure problems, the public is entitled to ask what its government is doing to address them. A president can pray for the country, but the country also needs effective administration.

Electricity is one of the clearest examples of the distance between political promises and everyday experience. Nigerian households and businesses continue to face unreliable supply, while repeated grid failures and inadequate generation have placed additional pressure on an already expensive operating environment. Premium Times reported that the national grid had experienced numerous collapses since Tinubu took office in May 2023, with the instability affecting businesses, households and essential services. Each major collapse can reduce transmitted electricity dramatically, forcing consumers to rely on petrol and diesel generators or alternative power arrangements. For a small business, the cost of running a generator is not an abstract economic statistic. It is money taken from wages, inventory, expansion and household income. For families, it means additional expenses simply to obtain a basic service that should be reliably available.

The administration cannot dismiss these frustrations by arguing that the electricity sector was already in crisis before Tinubu became president. That is true in an important sense: Nigeria's power problems predate the current administration and involve longstanding weaknesses in generation, gas supply, transmission infrastructure, distribution and revenue collection. Tinubu himself has acknowledged that the sector inherited chronic generation shortfalls, fragile transmission infrastructure and a significant metering deficit. But inheriting a crisis does not remove the responsibility to demonstrate measurable progress. The public needs to know what has improved, what has deteriorated, how much has been spent, which targets have been achieved and who is accountable for failures. A government cannot indefinitely use the weaknesses of previous administrations to explain why its own promises remain unfulfilled.

The president's political promises also matter. Tinubu campaigned on the expectation that his administration would improve electricity supply and make power a more reliable foundation for economic development. Nigerians are entitled to compare those promises with the actual performance of the sector. The question is not whether every power outage can be attributed personally to the president, because electricity supply depends on a complex system involving generation companies, transmission operators, distribution companies, regulators, gas suppliers and state institutions. The question is whether the government has established effective leadership, clear accountability and a credible plan for improving the system. When responsibility is distributed across so many institutions, the president's job is to ensure that those institutions are coordinated and that their leaders are held accountable for results.

The religious dimension of the trip should also be discussed without turning it into an attack on faith. Umrah is a legitimate act of worship for Muslims, and citizens should not be asked to choose between respecting religious practice and demanding good governance. The issue is the political symbolism of a president publicly asking for divine intervention while the machinery of government remains responsible for addressing problems that require human decisions, public spending, technical competence and institutional discipline. Prayer may provide personal reflection and spiritual comfort, but it cannot repair transmission lines, stabilise gas supply, resolve distribution losses or improve the financial sustainability of the electricity market. Those responsibilities belong to government and the institutions it oversees.

The Presidency has also faced questions about the timing and purpose of the Saudi visit, including speculation about whether it was connected to medical treatment. The government has denied that interpretation and maintained that the trip is religious. The State House announcement stated that the president would perform Umrah, while a presidential aide reiterated that the purpose was spiritual. There is no verified basis for presenting the trip as a medical journey. The more substantive issue remains the president's responsibility to ensure that the government continues functioning effectively during his absence and that the public receives clear information about the administration's priorities.

There is also a political accountability question. A president who seeks another mandate must be prepared to explain what has been achieved during the current one. If electricity remains unreliable, the cost of living continues to place pressure on households, and public services are unable to meet basic expectations, the administration must provide more than a list of inherited problems and future promises. Nigerians need transparent performance indicators, measurable targets and consequences for institutions that fail to deliver. They also need to know whether the people appointed to manage critical sectors possess the competence and authority to carry out their responsibilities. Political loyalty cannot be a substitute for technical ability, and public appointments should not become a system in which failure carries no consequence.

The question of resignation is ultimately a matter of constitutional and democratic accountability, not religious disagreement. A president's continued tenure is determined through the country's constitutional and electoral processes. Citizens can judge the administration's performance, political parties can scrutinise its record, and the electorate can decide whether to renew its mandate. The relevant issue is whether the government is willing to submit its performance to that scrutiny and accept the consequences of its record. A pilgrimage does not suspend the responsibility to govern, and a public prayer for national progress does not amount to a policy programme.

Nigeria does not need to choose between faith and effective government. It needs leaders who understand that both personal conviction and public responsibility have their proper place. Tinubu can pray for Nigeria in Makkah, but Nigerians at home still need electricity, affordable living conditions, functioning institutions and a government that can explain what it is doing to improve their lives. The test of leadership will not be the words spoken during a pilgrimage. It will be whether the government returns with a clearer sense of responsibility and whether citizens can see measurable improvements in the country they live in. A nation cannot be administered through prayer alone. It requires competence, accountability, planning and results.