Mr Elegushi
The Messenger, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, has said, "When honesty is lost, then wait for the Hour." That is the Day of Judgement. The companions asked him. "How will honesty be lost, O Allah's Messenger?" He said, "When authority is given to those who do not deserve it, then wait for the Hour."
Sahih al-Bukhari 6496
The Hajj and Umrah industry in Nigeria stands at a difficult threshold, even as Hajj operations advance with velocity. Early preparations are indispensable for participation and success in the exercise. This, naturally, is not detached from the remarkable transformation the Hajj operation undergoes under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, and his Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, may Allah preserve and protect them.
NAHCON has not bestowed upon Hajj operators, whether state pilgrim boards or tour operators, the liberty to select their Saudi service providers. This treatise contends with this matter as it bears upon private tour operators, in response to the interview granted by the Honourable Commissioner of Operations to the Independent Hajj Reports (IHR), published on October 18, 2025. I exhort the IHR, in its customary balanced reportage, to probe deeply into this subject as it concerns both states and private tour operators, to ascertain the veracity or absence thereof of the claim that NAHCON permits us to determine Saudi service providers for Nigerian pilgrims.
Unresolved Disagreements
The Commissioner of Operations, Prince Anofiu Elegushi, has chosen to coin the phrase “unresolved disagreement” to conceal the truth. There was no disagreement among private tour operators regarding the selection of service providers, as far as the proceedings of the two online meetings conducted by the Commission were concerned.
Before the first Zoom meeting of October 7, 2025, NAHCON had charged the leadership of the Association for Hajj and Umrah Operators of Nigeria (AHOUN) with the duty to source a reputable Saudi service provider to serve our pilgrims in Hajj 2026. Our representatives journeyed to Saudi Arabia, moving from office to office, assessing standards, and measuring the scale of services. They left no stone unturned, insisting on relocating our pilgrims from the fringes of Muzdalifah to the heart of Minaa (Zone 4) and negotiating premium services at a reasonable rate. They ultimately identified two service providers: Ar-Rifaadah and Ikraamud Daif. (The spelling reflects my pronunciation of the Arabic rather than the Anglicised form of the company’s name). Ikraamud Daif commendably served some pilgrims from the private tour operators during the 2025 Hajj, demonstrating the company’s experience and trustworthy service. The sole issue was that the 2026 packages of Ikraamud Daif would not be ready within the timeframe NAHCON allotted AHUON officials to submit their choice for service provider. Consequently, the sole viable alternative was Ar-Rifaadah, which bears about fifty years of experience serving the guests of the Most Merciful. Ar-Rifaadah, moreover, was among the Saudi service providers lauded by the Saudi Ministry of Hajj and Umrah for an excellent pilgrim experience award in 2025.
Upon receipt of the above information, NAHCON instructed AHUON to revert to its members to ascertain their preferences on the service provider matter. All three AHUON zones—Abuja, Kano, and Lagos—held meetings, the outcome of which indicated unanimous acceptance by 110 AHUON members of Ar-Rifaadah as the service provider for our pilgrims: 44 companies from the Lagos Zone, 36 from Kano, and 30 from Abuja.
First Zoom Meeting
During the first meeting, the Honourable Commission of Operations did not reference AHUON’s position on the Saudi service provider, as set forth in the documents presented to the Chairman of NAHCON. The meeting dwelt solely on the issue of lead companies and the groupings formed under each. Private tour operators were advised to proceed under last year’s arrangement and were at liberty to maintain the status quo ante or alter it. Each group would report to NAHCON within 48 hours.
Yet, when the matter of the service provider arose, members expressed a preference for Mashaariq or Ikraamud Daif. The Honourable Commissioner of Operations did not encourage this discussion, nor did he mention what AHUON had presented to NAHCON on Ar-Rifaadah.
Second Meeting
The second Zoom meeting was convened for October 10, 2025. The convener sought an update from Hajiya Gamawa (Hafsat Bala Tela - Deputy Director, Tour Operators) on the issue of lead companies and groupings. It became evident from Hajiya Gamawa’s response that only letters submitted to her desk were captured, while those addressed to the Chairman’s office were grudgingly recognised. The question remains: when has the office of the Chairman been relegated to a level where letters are not submitted to him for direction to the appropriate department, and where officers are addressed with total disregard of the Commission’s leadership? I recall a centralised system in which all correspondences were sent to the Chairman’s office and he minutes on such correspondences to the appropriate office for necessary action.
In the same interview with IHR, Mr Elegushi stated: “We met with all tour operators jointly, and I asked them, now that you couldn’t agree on service providers, have you given NAHCON the mandate to select a neutral service provider, and you people will go and negotiate with them? All those present unanimously agreed.” He further claimed to have rendered a verdict, saying, “The resolution automatically overturned our previous decision for them to choose their preferred service provider.” This is a blatant untruth. There was no such thing during the meeting he referenced. What he uttered was a discourse on how NAHCON deems it fit to choose “a neutral company,” the name of which will be disseminated on our platforms, with the Commission desiring tour operators to be in the driver’s seat, to assume ownership of the entire arrangement. NAHCON, he said, does not wish to partake in negotiation, pricing, or anything of the sort. He concluded with, “This is my submission!” And so it was—a submission by the Honourable Commissioner of Operations to participants at a Zoom meeting convened at his behest. There was no moment in which the Honourable Commission afforded any space for a robust discussion on the choice of service provider, nor did he seek the agreement of tour operators to seed the selection to NAHCON. The recording of the Zoom meeting remains with the Commission; I have also made my own recording. In this age, such brazen misrepresentation of fact cannot endure. It could be verified. The Honourable Commissioner chose to mislead those carried away by this falsehood. It did not occur.
When someone asked the Commissioner why NAHCON jettisoned the service provider chosen by AHUON, he responded by saying that “the issue has led to a serious controversy,” according to letters received by the Commission. “The house is totally divided,” he said, “due to allegations against the service provider you mentioned.” This, of course, did not answer the question. The Honourable Commissioner ought to have explained the issues or the contents of those letters without naming the authors, given what is at stake, if NAHCON truly desires to absolve itself of the charge of imposing a Saudi service provider on tour operators. And even then, Mr Elegushi avoided an adequate response to members’ insistence on having Ikraamud Daif as an alternative. In one such evasive response, the Commission urged: “They should analyse what the Committee specifies on the kind of service, etc…” Gibberish! This bears no relation to the question.
The Honourable Commissioner asserted that the National Assembly (NASS) had instructed NAHCON “not to patronize” Ithraa Aljoud since AHUON had complained to NASS about the company’s poor services. Thus, when AHUON presented Ithraa Aljoud as its service provider for 2026, NAHCON “rejected it” due to the company’s blacklisting by NASS. This, too, is a grievous misrepresentation of reality. The Nigerian National Assembly had not issued any instruction to NAHCON on Ithraa Aljoud. I concede that during the NASS public hearing of October 21, 2024, before the House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on the Investigation of NAHCON, there were extensive discussions on Ithraa Al-Khair, and not Ithraa Aljoud. In law, these are two distinct entities. If, by any chance, NASS has issued any instruction—which is doubtful—it must concern Ithraa Al-Khair. I say doubtful because the report of that public hearing, which was not made public, must include the NASS Committee Chairman’s instruction to NAHCON not to penalise individuals for presenting submissions to the investigation. I hope Honourable Sada Soli Jibiya is reading this piece. Yet, we were subtly penalised through the companies in which we have an interest. That shall not deter us in our endeavour. A Muslim does not believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part thereof (Al-Baqarah 2:85). Suppose the NASS had genuinely debarred NAHCON from engaging Ithraa Al-Khair, which is not Ithraa Ajjoud by the way. Why were those who made presentations at the aforementioned NASS hearing subjected to systematic penalties when NAHCON had been warned publicly during the hearing not to injure anyone for appearing before the Committee?
As the thread of truth is drawn taut across the loom of events, we pause with contemplative gravity, acknowledging the weight of what remains unsaid and the clarity born of careful scrutiny. The account stands, not as absolution, but as a vigil—a record of claims, counterclaims, and the pursuit of veracity within a complex theatre of process and power.
With measured resolve, I affirm that next week I will continue from where I stopped. I shall update readers on the reasons for my silence, the stage-managed orchestration observed in the Zoom forums, and a multitude of further revelations that will unfold in the second part of this piece. The forthcoming continuation promises to illuminate aspects left in shadow, inviting careful reflection and continued dialogue.
