The Federal Government’s decision to allocate N90 billion to subsidize the 2024 Hajj has sparked significant criticism, especially in light of the mere N50 billion earmarked for the student loan scheme in the 2024 budget.
Education and legal experts have condemned the move as a severe misplacement of priorities.
Vice President Kashim Shettima, representing President Bola Tinubu, announced the subsidy during the flag-off of the inaugural airlift for the 2024 Hajj at Sir Ahmadu Bello International Airport in Birnin Kebbi. Shettima emphasized the president’s commitment to easing the economic burden on pilgrims, urging them to pray for Nigeria’s peace, unity, and progress.
“Mr President is committed to this year’s Hajj due to the economic situation. He has contributed N90 billion to subsidize this year’s Hajj exercise to ensure a smooth and successful operation,” Shettima stated. He added that fluctuating foreign exchange rates had posed challenges in finalizing Hajj fares, which the president addressed by working to stabilize the local currency.
The National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON) had previously directed pilgrims to pay an additional N1.9 million due to these exchange rate fluctuations. The government’s intervention was aimed at reducing the financial burden on pilgrims.
Critics argue that the subsidy is a clear misallocation of resources, especially given the current economic challenges. Professor Hyginus Ekwuazi, former Vice-Chancellor of Dominican University, described the subsidy as a “gross misplacement of priority,” highlighting the dire need for investment in education, health, and social welfare instead.
ASUU President, Professor Emmanuel Osodeke, called for a comprehensive review of all government-sponsored pilgrimages, indicating that the union would issue a statement after considering the broader implications.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Awa Kalu, and human rights lawyer Festus Ogun both emphasized that the government should not be involved in funding religious activities, which they argue are personal affairs. Ogun criticized the subsidy as a “clear waste of people’s resources” and a “misplaced priority,” given the widespread poverty and hunger in Nigeria.
Other legal experts echoed these sentiments, calling the subsidy unconstitutional and an indication of the political class’s disregard for the country’s pressing needs. Malcolm Omirhobho pointed out that such funding violates the principle of secularism enshrined in the Nigerian constitution, which prohibits the government from favoring any religion.
The backlash highlights the growing frustration among Nigerians over the government’s spending decisions, with many calling for a reassessment of budget priorities to better address the country’s educational and social welfare needs.
