It’s not enough to limit government involvement in hajj but to institutionalise it permanently
Whether the constitutional secularity of the Nigerian state should accommodate its participation in the spiritual lives of the people, and what should be the limits of such involvement, are not new issues. But the Muhammadu Buhari presidency has reopened the unresolved debate by an official announcement of its detachment from the funding of pilgrims to Saudi Arabia for the hajj. Instead, the Federal Government’s role will be restricted to providing consular, medical and welfare support to the pilgrims. A national coordinating committee set up to supervise the hajj will be funded by the service charge paid by pilgrims to the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON).
Furthermore, in a significant departure from convention, there will be no delegation representing the central administration at the 2015 hajj for “procedural and economic reasons.” The government is expected to save one million US Dollars and N30 million in local expenses as a result of this decision.
It is noteworthy that 66,000 pilgrims are expected to be flown to the holy land ahead of the closure of Jedda Airport on September 17, according to NAHCON Chairman, Alhaji Abdullahi Muktar Muhammad. They are scheduled to return to Nigeria in batches in an operation that will be concluded by October 27.
It is unclear whether the position of the Presidency on this year’s hajj is essentially a policy that will be effected throughout President Buhari’s four-year tenure and define his perspective on the customary sponsorship of hajj pilgrims by the federal and state governments. The question is: Considering the premise of financial straits, will improved economic circumstances prompt a rethink? The possibility of a reversal, not only by the Buhari administration but also by succeeding authorities, is a strong indication that the question of state funding of pilgrimages remains a question and needs to be answered in definite and definitive terms.
Apart from the presidential position, the Kaduna State Governor Nasir el-Rufai’s example also reflected a reconsideration of the subject that may become appealing to other governors. El-Rufai was quoted as saying that the state had saved N221.8m following its decision to shun pilgrimage sponsorship. His argument that the state had to save resources to be able to address other pressing problems, especially in the areas of education and health, has the force of sound logic in the context of the country’s development challenges. In a repeat of the Federal Government’s reasoning, the Kaduna State government said: “The government recognises its duty to provide officials who will cater for the spiritual and welfare needs of the pilgrims. Therefore, the government will discharge its obligation to the pilgrims and send a delegation of guides, preachers, medical personnel, media professionals and pilgrim officers.”
Statistics that 5,682 citizens of the state would attend this year’s hajj, to be supported by 116 officials, paint a picture of the size of supposedly privately sponsored pilgrims. However, El-Rufai’s boast that his administration has made the concept of pilgrimage-sponsorship by government irrelevant suggests a lack of appreciation of his constitutionally limited tenure and the possibility of a reversal by succeeding administrations.
What this means is that it will take more than the personal perspective of political helmsmen to put a stop to the practice of government-funded pilgrimage. To prevent possible flip-flop on the issue based on the preference of whoever is in power, there should be a formal concretisation of the no-government-funding position.
It must be stressed that the principle of non-governmental pilgrimage-sponsorship should be applied to Christian pilgrims as well. Specifically, Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem and related holy lands ought to be privately sponsored too.
It goes without saying that government sponsorship of pilgrimages related to Islam and Christianity involves money that could be better employed for development purposes. Faith is personal and should be treated as such by the political authorities. This will free much-needed funds for critical developmental projects at both federal and state levels.
Particularly in the new era of President Buhari focused on and driven by an intense anti-corruption crusade, the privatisation of matters relating to religious pilgrimage will probably have positive implications for the anti-corruption war. Given the rottenness of the old political order, it may not need any special investigation to support allegations that government pilgrimage-sponsorship has been a platform for corrupt practices by political players.
It is high time the secular and the spiritual were distinctly differentiated in a country that claims a non-theocratic tag. The actual problems of the secular world, particularly in a development-challenged country like Nigeria, are too demanding to excuse the use of scarce funds on spiritual aspirations that are personal and only narrowly promote the corporate good. We must separate pilgrims’ progress from socio-economic progress.
