Why the Federal Government Must Extend Fairness to Hajj Pilgrims
By Lawan Musa Danlami (Baba Lawan)
August 2025
The Federal Government’s recent decision to subsidize by 50 percent the costs of Christian pilgrimages to Israel and Jordan has stirred widespread debate in Nigeria. While many Christians have hailed the gesture as a demonstration of compassion and a recognition of the spiritual needs of the faithful, many Muslims across the country are asking a crucial question: Will similar relief be extended to those embarking on the Hajj pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia?
This debate is not merely about money or religion; it touches the very core of Nigeria’s constitutional promise of fairness, equality, and religious neutrality. As a multi-religious country with Muslims and Christians forming the overwhelming majority of its population, government actions in matters relating to faith carry significant symbolic weight. A policy that appears to favor one religious group over another risks creating divisions, resentment, and mistrust—fault lines Nigeria can ill afford.
The Importance of Hajj and Christian Pilgrimage
For Muslims, the Hajj is not optional. It is a fundamental pillar of Islam, commanded by God in the Qur’an and obligatory upon every Muslim who is physically and financially capable of undertaking it at least once in their lifetime. To a devout Muslim, therefore, the Hajj is not a mere spiritual excursion but a sacred duty, an act of obedience, and a deeply transformative experience.
For Christians, pilgrimages to holy sites such as Israel and Jordan hold immense spiritual value. Visiting locations tied to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ strengthens faith, builds devotion, and provides believers with an opportunity to connect physically with their religious heritage. While not obligatory in Christian doctrine, such pilgrimages are widely encouraged and highly regarded.
Thus, both journeys—though different in theology—occupy profound spaces in the religious lives of Nigerians. By subsidizing one, the government sets a precedent that must be carefully balanced in the interest of fairness.
Historical Context: Government and Pilgrimages in Nigeria
The Nigerian state has a long history of involvement in religious pilgrimages. The establishment of the Nigerian Christian Pilgrim Commission (NCPC) and the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON) reflects the government’s recognition of the importance of faith-based journeys. These commissions were created to regulate, coordinate, and facilitate pilgrimages, ensuring that Nigerians travel in safety and dignity.
Successive governments, both military and civilian, have provided forms of support to pilgrims—ranging from foreign exchange allocations and administrative assistance to logistical coordination. However, such support has often been contested. Critics argue that Nigeria, as a secular state, should not directly fund religious activities. Proponents counter that in a deeply religious society where faith permeates every aspect of life, government involvement is not only inevitable but necessary for fairness and national cohesion.
The latest 50 percent subsidy to Christian pilgrims therefore does not exist in a vacuum. It sits atop decades of government intervention and raises anew the challenge of maintaining religious equity in public policy.
The Question of Justice and Fairness
Justice is not only about doing good to some; it is about doing good fairly to all. By subsidizing Christian pilgrimages, the government has demonstrated goodwill, but justice demands that Muslims too must benefit from similar consideration when performing the Hajj. Anything less creates an imbalance that undermines the principle of equality before the state.
Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, among other factors. Moreover, Nigeria is not a theocratic state; it is a secular republic committed to religious neutrality. This means that while the government may support religious activities for social or cultural reasons, it must do so in a way that does not privilege one faith above another.
If subsidies are provided to Christian pilgrims but not to Muslim pilgrims, the government risks violating not only the spirit of the Constitution but also the trust of millions of its Muslim citizens
Economic Hardship and the Reality of Pilgrimage Costs
The urgency of fairness becomes even clearer when one considers the dire economic situation in Nigeria. Inflation, currency devaluation, and rising unemployment have left many households struggling to afford basic necessities. For Muslim families, the rising cost of Hajj—often exceeding ₦8 million per pilgrim—has made the sacred journey nearly impossible for the average believer.
By contrast, the 50 percent subsidy for Christian pilgrims drastically eases their burden, ensuring that thousands more will be able to travel. Without similar relief, Muslims could understandably feel marginalized, as though their spiritual obligations are considered less worthy of government concern. Such perceptions are dangerous in a fragile multi-religious society.
The Symbolic Weight of Equal Treatment
Beyond economics, the issue is symbolic. Equal treatment sends a powerful message that Nigeria belongs to all—Muslims, Christians, and adherents of other faiths alike. It reassures citizens that their government values them equally, regardless of religious affiliation.
Conversely, unequal treatment—even if unintentional—fuels suspicion, division, and the perception that one group enjoys special privileges. Nigeria’s history has shown how quickly such grievances can escalate into deeper mistrust between communities. In a country already struggling with insecurity, poverty, and ethnic rivalries, no government can afford to ignite new religious tensions.
Interfaith Harmony and the Role of Government
Nigeria’s leaders often emphasize the importance of interfaith harmony. President after president has declared that religious diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Yet words must be matched by actions. Policies that appear to favor one faith undermine those lofty ideals and embolden extremists who thrive on narratives of injustice.
By extending the same subsidy to Muslim pilgrims, the government would not only fulfill its constitutional duty but also strengthen interfaith harmony. It would show that leadership in Nigeria transcends sectarianism and that governance is about fairness, balance, and inclusion.
Possible Alternatives and Middle Ground
Some argue that the best way to avoid these controversies is for government to withdraw entirely from subsidizing pilgrimages, leaving religious obligations to individuals and their faith communities. While this position has merit, it is politically and socially sensitive in a deeply religious society like Nigeria. Abrupt withdrawal could be perceived as hostility to religion and might spark backlash.
A more realistic middle ground is for government to maintain involvement but ensure equity. If 50 percent subsidies are granted to Christian pilgrims, an equivalent measure must be extended to Muslim pilgrims. Alternatively, government can introduce a uniform percentage subsidy for all religious pilgrimages, regardless of destination. Such an approach would preserve fairness while gradually preparing the ground for possible long-term reforms.
Conclusion: The True Test of Justice
The Federal Government’s decision to ease the financial burden of Christian pilgrims is commendable. It reflects compassion and sensitivity to the aspirations of a significant segment of Nigeria’s population. However, the policy’s credibility and moral weight depend on extending similar consideration to Muslims when the Hajj season arrives.
Justice is indivisible. A policy that comforts one group but leaves another behind cannot stand as just. True leadership in a plural society like Nigeria is measured not by generosity to one community but by fairness to all.
If Nigeria is to build enduring peace and unity, the government must act swiftly to ensure balance in pilgrimage support. Doing so will affirm the country’s constitutional ideals, strengthen interfaith harmony, and reassure every citizen that they belong equally to the Nigerian state.
In the end, fairness is not optional; it is the foundation of national cohesion.
Tags
Opinion