The Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Friday dismissed the suit seeking to declare the establishment of the Nigerian Christian Pilgrims Commission (NCPC) and the National Hajj Commission (NAHCON) unconstitutional.
The court, presided over by Justice Akintayo Aluko, also affirmed the legality of religious commissions established by the government in Nigeria.
The suit, filed by Human Rights and Empowerment Project Ltd/Gte on October 17, 2024, was based on the argument that the NCPC and NAHCON Acts were inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The applicant specifically argued that government funding and subsidization of religious pilgrimages for Christians and Muslims was discriminatory against followers of other religions and amounted to an unconstitutional adoption of the state religion, violating Sections 10 and 42 of the Constitution.
However, Justice Aluko held that the applicant failed to provide credible and convincing evidence to support his claims of constitutional violation.
In its petition, the Human Rights and Empowerment Project had sought declarations that the laws were inconsistent with the Constitution, along with an order preventing the federal government from funding or subsidizing these pilgrimages.
They further argued that government allocations for pilgrimages constituted a misuse of taxpayer funds and violated the fundamental right to be free from discrimination.
It may be recalled that during the hearing on October 9, 2025, the plaintiff’s lawyer had urged the court to declare that restricting funding only to Christian and Muslim pilgrims was discriminatory and violated constitutional provisions.
But the fourth respondent, NAHCON, responded to this claim, stating that all Hajj payments were made directly by the pilgrims through the state-level Muslim Pilgrim Welfare Boards, and not from public funds, as alleged.
NAHCON’s counsel further argued that the existence of the religious commissions did not amount to the adoption of a state religion and that the petitioner did not identify any specific group whose rights were violated.
To resolve the constitutional question, Justice Aluko examined Section 10 (prohibiting the adoption of a state religion) and Section 42 (protecting against discrimination) of the Constitution.
The court concluded that there was no credible evidence to show that the NCPC or NAHCON laws resulted in the adoption of a state religion or violated the right to be free from discrimination.
Regarding the claim of misappropriation of taxpayer funds, the court highlighted that the applicant’s evidence, which was based largely on journalistic publications, was inadequate.
Justice Aluko emphasized that such publications were inadmissible as hearsay unless they were duly certified in accordance with the law.
The court also noted that for declaratory relief to be granted, strong and convincing evidence is required, which the petitioner did not provide, adding that relying on speculation and media reports without concrete evidence could not support a constitutional claim.
The court dismissed the suit for lack of merit and substance. No ruling was made on costs, and the parties were ordered to bear their respective expenses.
READ MORE FROM: Newslodge