In every serious society, journalism exists to hold power accountable, not to massage the ego of those in authority. Yet, in Nigeria’s Hajj ecosystem, a troubling trend is emerging where commentary increasingly resembles public relations, and criticism is portrayed as sabotage.
The recent article by one Mikail Mumuni, titled “NAHCON: Time to stop grappling with ‘toddler-like’ behavioral patterns,” exemplifies this dangerous drift.
On the surface, the piece appears reflective and conciliatory. But beneath its polished prose lies something more familiar: a carefully packaged defence of the leadership of the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON), particularly its chairman, at a time when the institution is confronted with serious questions.
When an organisation is battling unresolved petitions, boardroom conflicts, procurement controversies, accommodation shortages, refund delays, reduction of hajj slots by the Saudi Ministry of hajj due to violations of guidelines, and contract disputes, the role of journalism is not to preach silence but to demand answers.
Peace without accountability is not stability; it is surrender.
Instead of interrogating why NAHCON, under its current leadership, has repeatedly lurched from one crisis to another, the article shifts blame to critics and stakeholders who dare to ask questions. This approach raises legitimate concerns about motive.
To many observers, the piece reads less like an objective analysis and more like a public relations effort, possibly driven by the desire to remain in the good books of power.
Anyone whose primary duty is to patronise those in authority is not practising journalism but propaganda.
A member of the Guild of Editors who is unable to distinguish between journalism and longer throat pen, who lacks an understanding of the principles of accountable leadership and flip-flop figurehead, whose sole goal is to obtain a free slot, and who has never raised an eyebrow, even if it is a faint one, when pilgrims’ interests are being pursued by serious and independent-minded journalists.
As Amit Kalantri once wrote, “It is better to die with your boots on than to live as a bootlicker.” Sadly, Nigeria’s public space is increasingly crowded with writers who would rather polish boots than confront inconvenient truths.
If the NAHCON chairman has truly delivered transparent, efficient, and pilgrim-centred leadership, facts, not flattering articles, should speak for him. But when institutional failures are reframed as misunderstandings and systemic problems are dismissed as mere distractions, one begins to wonder whether access to privilege has become more important than allegiance to truth.
To this set of journalists, the theory of evocative interaction immediately goes live when issues that concern the Chairman of NAHCON are presented, but their pen (or keypad) dies a little when the interests of pilgrims are being discussed, thereby ignoring the central route to persuasion.
They swarm around Barr Zikrullah Hassan when he is of benefit and immediately turn full circle when he leaves office. They defend and clap for Barr Jalal Arabi regardless of what he does or doesn’t; they behave as if they never knew him when he left office.
They will also repeat their usual self if Professor Abdullahi USMAN Saleh leaves office today and embrace the next coming hajj seat distributor.
A thinker once lamented the existence of “affable dispensers of meaningless embraces, obliging utterers of empty words.” That description fits perfectly those who would rather defend the image of the NAHCON chairman than defend the interests of Nigerian pilgrims.
The Hajj is not a public relations project. It is a sacred obligation that demands competence, transparency, and integrity. Calling for silence in the face of dysfunction is not patriotism; it is complicity.
Institutions do not collapse because of criticism; they collapse because of incompetence shielded from criticism.
Journalism is not designed to make leaders comfortable; it is designed to make institutions accountable. And when writers choose comfort over courage, they do not defend NAHCON; they expose the very crisis they are trying to conceal.
I don’t mind their self-serving glorification trade, but they should realise that hundreds of them multiplied tenfold won’t be able to silence those who genuinely want to see better Hajj administration in Nigeria. The more they bemoan and detest constructive criticism, the more they expose their transient patron to public scrutiny.
Until the leadership of NAHCON is subjected to honest scrutiny, no amount of poetic writing will change the reality on the ground. Truth, not praise, is the foundation of reform.
