Opinion: How Transparency at NAHCON Turned Professor Abdullahi Sale Usman into a Target
The recent working visit of the Chairman of the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON), Professor Abdullahi Sale Usman, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has exposed more than just an attempted financial scandal; it has laid bare the deep resistance to transparency within certain power circles surrounding the Hajj administration. By dismantling a calculated plot to misappropriate billions of naira earmarked for the 2026 Hajj, Professor Usman effectively crossed a red line for those who see public institutions as avenues for personal enrichment.
Available facts point to a coordinated attempt by some individuals, working alongside selected service providers, to deliberately downgrade the quality of services meant for Nigerian pilgrims. The plan was simple but sinister: alter existing contractual agreements, cut corners on accommodation, transportation, and welfare, and divert the excess funds into private hands. Had this scheme succeeded, thousands of pilgrims would have borne the cost through avoidable hardship, while a few benefitted illicitly.
Professor Usman’s response was firm and uncompromising. He refused to rubber-stamp altered agreements and insisted on full compliance with previously negotiated standards. More importantly, he did not return to Nigeria until he was satisfied that the plot had been completely neutralized and that concrete safeguards were established to protect pilgrims’ funds and welfare. His actions sent a clear message that under his watch, the Hajj would not be reduced to a money-making venture for opportunists.
However, it is precisely this insistence on transparency and accountability that appears to have triggered the recent internal rebellion against him. In an ironic twist, some board members of NAHCON reportedly passed a vote of no confidence on Professor Usman—not because of incompetence or failure, but because his transparent leadership style stood in the way of unchecked access to public funds. From an objective standpoint, the move raises serious questions: why would a chairman who blocked financial leakages and defended pilgrims’ interests suddenly be deemed unfit, unless powerful interests felt threatened?
The vote of no confidence, viewed through this lens, seems less about governance and more about clearing the path for financial impunity. Removing or weakening a chairman who insists on due process would make it easier for those with questionable intentions to operate without scrutiny, accountability, or resistance. In public institutions, such tactics are sadly familiar: when transparency becomes inconvenient, the reformer becomes the problem.
It is also not surprising that attempts to malign Professor Usman’s character or push for his removal began almost immediately after his intervention in Saudi Arabia. Those who lost access to easy money were bound to fight back, using institutional tools and political pressure to regain control.
In truth, Professor Abdullahi Sale Usman’s tenure represents a rare layer of protection for Nigerian pilgrims. His leadership underscores the uncomfortable reality that integrity in public office often attracts hostility from within. If Nigerians are serious about protecting public funds and ensuring a dignified Hajj experience, then actions taken against transparency-driven leadership should be critically examined—not applauded.
Silencing accountability today may enrich a few, but it will ultimately cost the nation, its institutions, and its citizens far more tomorrow.
mustyillo@gmail.com
24th January 2026.
