By Nworisa Michael
Like many others, I have followed the reactions trailing the approval of ₦1.5 billion by the Kano State Government for the conduct of a mass wedding programme. The criticisms have been loud and, in many respects, understandable. Many have argued that such resources could have been committed to education, healthcare, youth empowerment, job creation or other pressing needs confronting ordinary citizens. To be honest, I understand where they are coming from.
However, as I watched the conversation unfold, I found myself looking beyond the figures and beyond the government itself. I began asking a different question: why are we only having this conversation now?
Mass weddings are not new in Kano. They did not begin under the current administration. Similar programmes have existed for years and, more often than not, they were celebrated. Many saw them as noble interventions designed to support the less privileged, strengthen families and make marriage accessible to those who could not afford it. In fact, there was a time when announcing such programmes would attract almost universal applause and very little scrutiny. That reality is important because it reminds us that what is being questioned today is not merely a government policy but a long-standing societal practice that successive administrations have embraced with broad public support.
Today, however, something feels different. For perhaps the first time, a significant number of people are not asking how many couples would benefit. They are asking whether government should be bearing the burden at all. They are asking whether public resources should be directed more towards helping people become economically capable of building and sustaining families themselves. And honestly, I think that shift in thinking deserves attention.
Kano first
Governments often reflect the priorities and values of the people they serve. If previous administrations received praise for mass weddings, it was because society largely embraced the idea. If today’s citizens are beginning to question that approach, then perhaps what we are witnessing is not merely criticism of a policy but the evolution of society’s priorities. In that regard, I find it difficult to place the entire burden of criticism on Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf. A government can only act within the realities, expectations and traditions of the people it governs. The same society that is questioning the programme today is largely the same society that applauded similar interventions in years gone by.
Years ago, when Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II spoke about the dangers of men marrying more wives and having more children than their resources could support, many people strongly disagreed with him. Some viewed his comments as an attack on culture, religion and tradition, while others accused him of being disconnected from the realities of ordinary people. Yet, as the years pass, it appears that more people are beginning to understand the concerns he was raising. Not because culture has changed, but because economic realities have become harder to ignore. Families are under pressure, opportunities are limited and the cost of living continues to rise. Increasingly, people are beginning to ask whether marriage should be encouraged without equal emphasis on economic preparedness and responsibility.
That is why I believe the current debate is bigger than Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf or the Kano State Government. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of the current administration has been its effort to project itself as a people-oriented government that listens to public concerns. For that reason, I am confident that the voices emerging from this conversation would not go unnoticed. Not necessarily because the programme was wrong, but because governments must continuously adapt to changing public expectations and evolving realities.
At the same time, those of us criticizing government policies must also be willing to look inward. The truth is that no government can successfully reform societal attitudes if communities themselves are unwilling to embrace change. If we genuinely believe that economic stability should come before family expansion, then that message must not stop on Facebook, X or WhatsApp. It must find its way into our homes, our mosques, our neighbourhood gatherings and our everyday conversations.
It is easy to criticize a government for funding marriages. It is much harder to challenge a friend who is preparing to assume responsibilities he cannot sustain. It is easy to demand policy changes online. It is much harder to advocate responsible family planning, financial discipline and economic preparedness within our immediate communities. Real change begins when we are willing to have uncomfortable conversations not only with government but also with ourselves.
Perhaps that is why I find the current debate encouraging. Not because people are attacking the government, and not because the government is being defended, but because for once we seem to be discussing the root causes rather than merely the symptoms. We seem to be asking ourselves difficult questions about poverty, responsibility, priorities and the kind of society we want to build.
And if that conversation continues honestly and respectfully, then regardless of where one stands on the mass wedding programme, something valuable may emerge from it.