The Alamanah Global Islamic Foundation, a civil society organization committed to justice, accountability and pilgrims’ awareness, issues this rejoinder in the interest of truth, institutional integrity and the protection of Nigerian pilgrims, following the circulation of a petition and media reports alleging misconduct against the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON), Professor Abdullahi Saleh Usman.
While lawful oversight of public institutions is both legitimate and necessary, our findings indicate that the current campaign against the NAHCON Chairman is neither driven by due process nor motivated by pilgrims’ welfare. Rather, it reflects a coordinated backlash against ongoing reforms and a refusal to sustain entrenched and unlawful practices within Hajj operations. Nigeria, the Presidency and the international community deserve a clear and factual understanding of the issues at stake.
Resistance to Reform, Not a Quest for Accountability
Our independent review shows that the present crisis did not originate from financial impropriety, but from the Chairman’s refusal to approve customary yet unlawful percentage kickbacks historically demanded in Hajj feeding contracts, transportation services, accommodation arrangements and Mashā‘ir operations in Mina, Arafat and Muzdalifah.
These hidden deductions, long extracted by informal power blocs, have traditionally been transferred to pilgrims through reduced service quality, overcrowded accommodation, inferior feeding and recurring operational failures often attributed to “logistics.” The Chairman’s insistence on cost transparency, direct contracting and full-value service delivery disrupted this illicit system. The petition currently in circulation must therefore be understood as retaliatory rather than corrective.
Illegality of the Purported “Vote of No Confidence”
Under the NAHCON Act, Board members possess no statutory authority to pass or communicate a vote of no confidence on the Chairman. Their role is advisory and oversight-based, not executive or disciplinary in nature. Any such vote is unknown to law, procedurally invalid and of no legal consequence.
Attempts to pressure the Presidency through media narratives rather than established legal channels represent an abuse of public trust and set a dangerous precedent for governance.
Financial Allegations Without Particulars
The allegations being circulated are heavy on headlines but light on verifiable evidence. No petition has presented contract references, procurement committee decisions, audit queries, Bureau of Public Procurement breach notices or forensic audit reports.
In law and governance, allegations without particulars amount to insinuation, not accountability. It must also be stated that NAHCON operates a multi-layered financial control system involving the Commissioner for Policy, Personnel, Management and Finance, the Accounts Department and Internal Audit. No single official can unilaterally authorise expenditure outside this framework. All approvals pass through collective institutional processes, many of which involved the same officials now expressing public outrage.
Misrepresentation of EFCC References
The selective invocation of anti-corruption institutions for internal power struggles is troubling. Available records indicate that several cases being cited predate the tenure of the current Chairman. Furthermore, some individuals now projecting moral outrage are themselves linked to unresolved or inherited EFCC matters.
Ethical governance demands consistency. Oversight credibility requires clean hands, and no individual should assume the roles of accuser, judge and moral authority while under unresolved investigation.
Operational Challenges and the 2025 Hajj
Hajj operations are inherently complex, involving multinational coordination, evolving Saudi regulatory frameworks, airline capacity limitations and exchange-rate volatility. Challenges encountered during the 2025 Hajj cannot be credibly reduced to the actions of a single individual while ignoring institutional inertia, internal non-cooperation, sabotage and legacy contractual obligations.
Internal Sabotage and Governance Breaches
Our findings reveal a disturbing pattern of conduct by certain Board members, including unauthorised official correspondence, direct engagement with external stakeholders without executive clearance, public briefings against the Commission and attempts to usurp executive authority. These actions constitute gross insubordination, institutional sabotage and violations of established governance norms.
No institution can function effectively when internal actors undermine leadership while simultaneously demanding stability.
Pilgrims at the Centre of the Crisis
The real victims of this conflict are Nigerian pilgrims. When unlawful deductions are eliminated, pilgrims benefit. When reform blocks rent-seeking, vested interests resist. This campaign risks distracting from 2026 Hajj preparations, undermining Nigeria–Saudi institutional relations and re-entrenching exploitative practices that harm pilgrims.
Our Position
In the national interest, Alamanah Global Islamic Foundation calls for a comprehensive and independent forensic audit of NAHCON covering multiple administrations, not a selective witch-hunt. We also call for a disciplinary review of Board members who issued unlawful votes of no confidence, engaged in unauthorised communications or have unresolved integrity issues.
Institutional reforms that eliminate hidden deductions and improve pilgrims’ welfare must be protected, and leadership stability should be maintained pending the outcome of lawful investigations, not media-driven verdicts.
Conclusion
Nigeria’s Hajj administration must not be reduced to a battleground for control of contracts, preservation of shadow benefits or institutional capture. The Presidency deserves facts, not factional pressure. The public deserves truth, not spectacle. Nigerian pilgrims deserve service, not exploitation.
Anything short of due process and holistic accountability will confirm that the objective of this petition was never reform, but retaliation for refusing to compromise public trust.
Dr. S.T. Ishola