Kenyan President William Ruto and Nigerian President Bola Tinubu have both come under fire for their frequent trips abroad since assuming office. Critics argue that the costs associated with their extensive travel contrast sharply with the economic challenges faced by their respective countries. In Kenya, President Ruto has been mockingly nicknamed the “Flying President” by the Standard newspaper, as his love for air travel appears to be insatiable. However, amidst mounting criticism, both leaders and their aides defend their trips as necessary for diplomatic and economic reasons.
In the eight months since his inauguration, President Tinubu has embarked on 14 trips, averaging close to two trips a month. This pales in comparison to President Ruto, who has visited more than 50 countries since assuming office in 2022. This translates to an average of over three trips a month. By contrast, President Ruto’s predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta, averaged just over one foreign trip per month during his ten-year tenure, a figure similar to Nigeria’s previous president, Muhammadu Buhari. While it is not uncommon for world leaders to accumulate air miles, Ruto and Tinubu face persistent questions about the necessity of each trip.
Critics argue that while some overseas visits are essential for attending heads-of-state meetings and establishing diplomatic relations, others are nothing more than personal glorifications. Kenyan foreign policy analyst Prof Macharia Munene concurs, emphasizing that not all trips are in the country’s best interest. He argues that some trips are mere self-promotion rather than serving the nation’s needs.
President Tinubu’s most recent trip was to Europe at the end of last month, where he embarked on another unexplained “private visit” to France, his third since May. Meanwhile, President Ruto attended the Italy-Africa summit in Italy. However, questions remain about the necessity and economic benefits of these trips.
Regarding the frequency and costs of their travels, critics argue that these trips impose a burden on taxpayers. President Tinubu reportedly spent at least 3.4 billion naira ($2.2 million; £1.8 million) on domestic and foreign travel during his first six months in office, 36% more than the allocated budget for 2023. Similarly, a significant increase in the Office of the President’s travel expenditure has been noted in Kenya, exceeding the previous year’s travel budget by over 30%.
In response to the criticism, both Kenya and Nigeria have taken steps to address concerns about government officials’ travel expenses. Kenya announced a 50% reduction in the civil service travel budget, aiming to curb alleged wastage. However, this decision seemingly exempts the president, who maintains that his trips will continue as long as they yield benefits to the country. In Nigeria, President Tinubu recently announced a reduction in the official travel delegation by approximately 60%, including a reduction in his own entourage. However, it remains unclear whether this will result in fewer trips.
It is worth noting that concerns about the costs of government officials’ travel are not exclusive to Kenya and Nigeria. Other African countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Uganda, The Gambia, Namibia, and Sierra Leone, have also faced scrutiny over travel expenses. Last year, Malawian President Lazarus Chakwera suspended all international travel for himself and his ministers due to economic challenges facing the country.
While diplomatic engagements and establishing foreign relations are essential for any head of state, critics argue that leaders must strike a balance between necessary travel and the economic realities facing their countries. As public scrutiny continues, Presidents Ruto and Tinubu will likely face mounting pressure to justify the necessity and benefits of their frequent trips abroad.
