The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Nigeria’s Christian and Muslim pilgrims’ commissions, reaffirming the judiciary’s long-standing interpretation of the country’s secular framework.
The case was anchored on Sections 10 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution, while Section 10 prohibits the adoption of any religion as a state religion, Section 42 guarantees freedom from discrimination on religious grounds. The applicant argued that the Nigerian Christian Pilgrims Commission and the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria amounted to indirect state endorsement of religion and unfairly favoured Christians and Muslims over adherents of other faiths.
Justice Akintayo Aluko rejected the claims, holding that government regulation of religious activities does not amount to adopting a state religion. The court drew a distinction between state neutrality and state endorsement, noting that the Constitution bars official religious dominance, not administrative engagement in a multi-faith society.
A major weakness in the suit was the absence of credible evidence. The court found no proof that any identifiable group of Nigerians had suffered discrimination. Allegations of misuse of public funds were also dismissed, as the applicant relied largely on newspaper reports, which the court described as inadequate for constitutional claims.
The judgment further noted that pilgrimage funding is a policy choice, not a constitutional obligation, citing evidence that Lagos State saved ₦4.5 billion after ending pilgrimage sponsorship. NAHCON also maintained that Hajj expenses are paid directly by pilgrims, not from public funds.
By dismissing the suit, the court reaffirmed a key constitutional principle: Nigeria’s secularism is defined by the non-adoption of a state religion, not by the absence of state interaction with religion.
