N90bn Hajj Subsidy: Nigerians Slam FG's 'Misplaced Priorities

Nigerians criticize FG for choosing to provide N90 billion in Hajj subsidies

The Federal Government has faced criticism for its recent plan to use N90 billion to subsidize the Hajj in 2024, even though the 2024 budget only included N50 billion for the student loan program.

Legal and educational experts have criticized the move, pointing out that it is a misallocation of resources to spend such a large sum of money to subsidize Hajj.

Vice President Kashim Shettima said that President Bola Tinubu had ordered the N90 billion subsidy for the 2024 Hajj activity during the flag-off of the inaugural airlift at Sir Ahmadu Bello International Airport, Birnin Kebbi, on Wednesday.

The VP stated: “Mr President is committed to this year's Hajj due to the economic situation. He has contributed N90bn billion to subsidise this year's Hajj exercise to ensure a smooth and successful operation.

“You may recall that this year, we had a major challenge in announcing the final Hajj fare for the 2024 Muslim pilgrimage due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.

“President Bola Tinubu also works round the clock to control the downward spiral of our local currency to bring relief to our pilgrims and other Nigerians. A move that eventually succeeded in lowering the fare. The president approved the release of N90 billion to subsidise the cost of pilgrimage for this year's Hajj.”

The vice president urged the planned pilgrims to pray for peace, unity, and progress in Nigeria, citing the president's proposal in light of the country's economic circumstances.

Remember that before the deadline of March 29, 2024, pilgrims were required to pay an additional N1.9 million balance based on current foreign exchange rates, per an order issued by the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria.

In March 2024, NAHCON released a statement signed by Assistant Director of Public Affairs Fatima Usara. The statement stated that the commission was unable to meet the deadline set by the Saudi Ministry of Hajj and Umrah due to late and non-remittance of fares. Nevertheless, the government took action by requesting reductions in costs.

The Federal Government is being criticized by stakeholders in the education and legal sectors for providing a large subsidy for religious pilgrimages. They claim that this action shows a lack of concern for the widespread hunger, increasing rates of poverty, and wanton underdevelopment that are plaguing the nation's educational system.

They called the Federal Government's action a flagrant shift in priorities.

Professor Hyginus Ekwuazi, a former vice-chancellor of the Catholic university Dominican University in Ibadan, characterized the Hajj subsidy as a flagrant misallocation of priorities in light of the faltering state of the Nigerian economy and the government's declining ability to generate money.

“It is not just that it is the Hajj, it is that they are channelling the money into where it should not go at all. Whether it is even the Christian pilgrimage or the Muslim pilgrimage, it is wrong and a crass misplacement of priority. We are all looking forward to the day the government will be able to channel its resources to the right areas, where there is demand. Certainly and most certainly, that won't be a pilgrimage. It will be education, health, and social welfare. Those are the three cardinal issues.

“What will happen next is that the government will try to balance it by putting some amounts into the Christian pilgrimage. So we are looking at the two together. Let's just not say it is Islamic or for Muslims alone. The implication again is that we already have a wobbling economy. The government is now taking money that is a scarce commodity and putting it where it is unnecessary as it will not address the common good. So the implication is negative.”

Additionally, Prof. Emmanuel Osodeke, National President of the Academic Staff Union of Universities, declared that the union would examine all government-sponsored pilgrimages comprehensively and provide a statement thereafter.

“We, as a union, don't want to be involved in any religious matters. Now, they have paid for Hajj, and I know that they are also giving to all other groups for pilgrimage. But we, as a union, will look at all of them holistically before making our statement known,” the ASUU chair said.

Chief Awa Kalu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, responded to the problem by pleading with the Federal Government to stay out of religious affairs, arguing that it is not its place to fund religious initiatives.

“It's been discussed for some years now that government should not get involved in pilgrimage or religious matters. I support this. If you want to go on a pilgrimage, gather your money and go. It should not have anything to do with the government,” he stated.

The Federal Government has also come under fire from human rights attorneys Festus Ogun over the religious subsidy. He pointed out that the decision made by the Federal Government is an example of both a constitutional and moral aberration, as it is not within the legal jurisdiction of a government to subsidize religious pilgrimages since they are private matters.

He said, “The government of Nigeria has no business sponsoring Hajj or Christian pilgrimage. That is not the business of the government. The majority of our people are wallowing in abject poverty and tattered penury. Religion is a personal issue. So the government should not have any business with it. Imagine a country that is wallowing in abject poverty, whose citizens can barely feed, now subsidising pilgrims to Mecca or Jerusalem? I think it is a clear waste of people's resources and a case of 

misplaced priority.

“We just have to be very sincere to ourselves. What is the government's business with sponsoring people who want to go to Hajj? How does that contribute to national development? How does that solve the hunger crisis in the country? How does it solve the insecurity crisis in the country? So I think the subsidy and allocating such a wanton amount of money is reckless and does not reflect the reality of our people.”

Pelumi Olajengbesi, a different human rights lawyer, claimed that the ruling demonstrated the Federal Government's lack of seriousness and concern for the plight of the Nigerian people.

He opined: “It shows that the Federal Government is very unserious. Given all we are going through in this country, that is unfair and a decision that is against the people's interest. That money can build and establish 90 industries in Nigeria. If you take one billion each to build industries, we will have 90 industries. It is a lot of misplacement of priority.

“This is a wake-up call that Nigeria's system of electing leaders needs to change. It is a shame and abuse. It shows those of us in positions of authority don't care about Nigerians and they are not as religious as you think. They are doing it for political patronage.”

Malcolm Omirhobho, another lawyer, said in a similar spirit that the Federal Government's action is unlawful and indicative of the political class's ongoing attempts to weaponize the nation's pervasive poverty for their own personal advantage.