Constitutional law expert Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh has reignited debates over state-funded religious pilgrimages, arguing that taxpayer money should not subsidize private faith practices such as Hajj or Christian trips to holy sites.
The Executive Director of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) and Chairman of Ghana’s Constitutional Review Committee reiterated his longstanding opposition in a social media post, stressing that government involvement in religious pilgrimages violates principles of fiscal responsibility and secular governance.
“The Government of Ghana must get out of the sponsorship of private religious pilgrimage business, whether to Mecca or Israel,” Prempeh wrote. “Taxpayer money must not be applied to subsidize the practice of one’s private faith.” His remarks directly challenge a recent move by the Interim Hajj Taskforce, which slashed Hajj fares from GH₵75,000 to GH₵62,000 (approximately $4,130) per pilgrim—a subsidy framed as fulfillment of a 2024 campaign pledge by the ruling administration.
The subsidy reduction, while welcomed by Muslim groups, has drawn criticism from governance advocates who argue it prioritizes political patronage over equitable resource allocation. “This isn’t about faith; it’s about fairness,” Prempeh asserted. “Why should a farmer in Tamale or a trader in Kumasi fund another citizen’s spiritual journey?” His position echoes constitutional concerns over Ghana’s secular status, which prohibits state endorsement of any religion despite the country’s deeply rooted Christian and Muslim demographics.
Supporters of the subsidy defend it as a form of social support, particularly for low-income pilgrims who view Hajj as a lifelong spiritual obligation. “Government has a duty to assist citizens in fulfilling religious rites that promote national unity,” argued Sheikh Ahmed Ramadan, a spokesperson for the Ghana Hajj Board. Yet critics counter that such subsidies risk entrenching divisive favoritism. In 2022, similar controversies arose when the government partially funded Christian pilgrimages to Israel, a practice Prempeh called “indefensible then and now.”
The debate unfolds against a backdrop of economic strain, with Ghana still navigating austerity measures tied to its $3 billion IMF bailout. Economists warn that diverting public funds to pilgrimages—no matter how symbolic—undermines efforts to stabilize the economy. “Subsidies for essential goods like fuel or medicine are one thing, but pilgrimages are discretionary,” said Dr. Grace Bediako, former Government Statistician. “Every cedi spent here is a cedi not spent on healthcare, education, or debt reduction.”
Political analysts note the tension between constitutional ideals and electoral pragmatism. With religious groups wielding significant voting influence, successive governments have leaned on pilgrimage subsidies to curry favor. Prempeh’s critique, while legally sound, faces an uphill battle against entrenched political calculus. “This isn’t just a policy issue—it’s a survival tactic for politicians,” remarked University of Ghana political scientist Professor Ransford Gyampo.
As the Hajj season approaches, the subsidy dispute highlights a broader dilemma: Can Ghana reconcile its secular aspirations with the realities of faith-driven politics? For now, the state’s pilgrimage spending remains a contested line item—one that tests the boundaries between spiritual devotion and fiscal prudence.