- By Dankani Sani
When I first read the concern raised by the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) with respect to a certain N10 billion facility which it claimed the Kebbi State government deployed to sponsor intending Hajj pilgrims for the 2026 hajj, my mind skipped a bit. Like many readers encountering the claim for the first time, I paused.
On the surface, MURIC’s argument appeared persuasive. The organisation went to great lengths to list what N10 billion could achieve if invested in roads, education, healthcare and other public goods. In that moment, I found myself agreeing with its arithmetic and even sharing the disbelief it tried to provoke. Why, one would ask, would a responsible governor abandon such pressing needs for what was framed as religious indulgence?
In hindsight, that initial reaction was precisely the outcome MURIC sought. The article was long, emotionally charged and carefully packaged to provoke outrage, all while presenting outright falsehoods as settled facts. To reinforce its argument, MURIC wrapped itself in the garb of piety, projecting an image of a principled organisation defending Muslim interests against alleged governmental excess.
The problem, however, is that beneath the moral grandstanding lay a disturbing absence of due diligence. By that single article, MURIC revealed itself as a trigger-happy organisation, the kind that is impatient with verification, allergic to context, and overly enamoured with the attention that media sermonising brings. Reading that article, it becomes hard not to see MURIC in a whole new light as an organisation that projects outrage first, then facts later; if at all.
But, what are the facts of the matter? Well, for those genuinely interested in the truth, here is it! The N10 billion in question was neither a sponsorship nor a grant. Oh yes! It was a short-term facility advanced through the Kebbi State Pilgrims Welfare Agency to enable intending pilgrims meet the payment deadline set by the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON), which fixed December 5 as the deadline for Hajj fare remittances.
Read Also: Atiku’s son defects to APC, vows to mobilise for Tinubu’s re-election
The decision to take this route was reached because, as of that deadline, only about 2,000 pilgrims from Kebbi State had fully paid their fares. Approximately 1,300 others were at the risk of losing their Hajj slots, not because they were unwilling or incapable of paying, but because their payments were incomplete at that specific point in time. Without the facility, they would have lost their seats, and losing those slots would have meant a permanent forfeiture of their opportunity to perform the Hajj in 2026.
It was, therefore, to prevent that outcome, that the Kebbi State government approved a temporary financial intervention, clearly structured as a loan. The understanding was straightforward and documented: the money would be repaid within two weeks once the affected pilgrims completed their payments. While this may appear like a leap of faith; it was actually a calculated administrative decision grounded in realistic expectations.
And these expectations were met, because, as of December 16, 2025, just 11 days after the intervention, the entire N10 billion had been repaid by the intending pilgrims. And, the facility was fully returned to government coffers, with no loss of public funds, no hidden subsidy and no financial burden transferred to the state. Every detail of the transaction is verifiable through bank and agency records, including the exact dates the loan was granted and repaid.
This naturally leads to a more important question MURIC failed or refused to ask: why did the state government intervene in the first place? The answer lies in Kebbi’s peculiar socio-economic reality, a context MURIC seemed completely oblivious to. Many of the affected pilgrims are farmers and small-scale traders whose liquidity peaks around late November and early December, following harvests and seasonal sales. In this sense, therefore, their original challenge was timing, not inability.
Would MURIC have preferred that such pilgrims who were willing, eligible and financially capable lose their chance to perform a core religious obligation simply because of a short-term cash-flow mismatch? If so, that position would be not only rigid but also deeply insensitive to the lived realities of ordinary Muslims.
Thankfully, timely thinking by the state government ensured these ordinary folks did not lose their slots, and Kebbi State now has 3,629 slots, fully paid by the intending pilgrims for the 2026 Hajj, ranking second nationally. As a result, the state has been included in the first batch of states to be airlifted at the commencement of Hajj operations. All this without spending a dime of public funds. These are the concrete results that the intending pilgrims and indeed majority of the people of the state are very impressed with and not some tasteless press statements.
It is also important to state clearly that Kebbi is not alone in adopting this temporary financial approach. States like Gombe and others have used similar measures effectively in past Hajj operations. Here then, lies the real question: why did MURIC single out Kebbi? Why the selective outrage? Only MURIC can answer this question!
Equally troubling was the attempt to frame the issue as evidence of infrastructural neglect. By sermonising about what N10 billion could do for roads and hospitals, MURIC subtly implied that Kebbi State is failing in governance. This impression is false and must be corrected.
Let it be known, that under the leadership of Comrade Nasir Idris, Kebbi State has witnessed unprecedented infrastructure development. From long-abandoned road projects like the entire corridor leading to the Danko–Wasagu road to multiple interventions across sectors, the state has recorded visible, verifiable progress. Not only are these not abstract claims; they are projects citizens have seen and used. It is therefore difficult to believe that MURIC’s intervention was genuinely about governance outcomes.
Personally, this episode marks the first time I will be paying any close attention to MURIC, needless to say, it fell short. Let it be on record, that I’m not arguing that civil society organisations are unnecessary. On the contrary, groups like MURIC play vital roles in promoting accountability and safeguarding rights. But those roles lose credibility when facts are sacrificed on the altar of sensationalism.
My advice to MURIC assuming this is their modus operandi, is to change their approach to activism. This is because, as a religious-based rights organisation, the least expected of them is due diligence, verification of facts and restraints, not firing off volleys based on conjectures. Because, as we know, when conjecture replaces verification, speaking becomes worse than silence. And for a civil society organisation like MURIC, silence is golden, especially when the alternative is standing facts on their head.
•Sani writes from Birnin Kebbi.
