The right question is not whether mass weddings are inherently good or bad. It is whether public support changes the trajectory of beneficiary households, and whether it does so more effectively than alternative or complementary forms of social investment.
If marriage is important enough to warrant public investment, the success of that investment should be judged by the welfare of the family it helps create.
|
|
In August, the Kano State Government, in northwestern Nigeria, supported 1,500 couples through its Auren Gata mass-wedding programme, with beneficiaries drawn largely from low-income and vulnerable groups, including widows and divorcees. The support did not end with the solemnisation of the marriages: aside from the mandatory counselling and medical screening, reports indicated that couples received a combination of dowry and business assistance, and household items such as beds and mattresses. The state presented the programme as a social intervention intended to reduce the economic barriers to marriage, restore dignity, and strengthen family stability.
The number of couples that are married in social (mis)adventures like this is an output. The number of households that are safe, economically resilient, healthy, and able to educate their children years later is the outcome. The output is easy to measure; the outcome should hold our attention; and uncertainty around outcomes fuels much of the criticism directed at programmes like this one.
|
|
|
|---|
Moving Beyond the Wrong Argument
The public debate around mass weddings is often trapped between celebration and condemnation. Beneficiaries (both direct and indirect) and supporters see the programmes as culturally appropriate assistance to people who cannot afford the cost of marriage. Critics see scarce public resources devoted to ceremonies in states facing insecurity, unemployment, poor health outcomes, malnutrition, and large numbers of out-of-school children. For Kano State, in this context, bar the routine deeply endemic phone theft, especially within the city, the state has been relatively safe from major crimes like kidnapping and banditry that have afflicted several other states in northern Nigeria. However, the state has some of the poorest health indices in the country, with maternal mortality, for instance, exceeding 1,000 per 100,000 live births in some of its local government areas. The state also has one of the highest numbers of out-of-school children in the country.
The conversation across most quarters, therefore, has been whether the Kano State government gotten its priorities right.
A more useful policy conversation begins by avoiding an unsupported causal claim: mass weddings do not, by themselves, “create poverty.” Many beneficiaries are selected precisely because they are already experiencing economic vulnerability. Finding that some remain poor after marriage would not prove that the programme made them poor; that would confuse the criteria used to select beneficiaries with the effects of the intervention.
Kano is also not alone. Kebbi sponsored a mass wedding for more than 300 couples in 2024, combining dowry support with health screening and proposed skills training. In April, Zamfara sponsored 100 couples from vulnerable groups, providing dowry payments, household items and small business support.
But the opposite assumption is equally weak. A successful ceremony, the distribution of furniture, and even the survival of a marriage do not by themselves prove that the intervention improved family welfare.
The right question is not whether mass weddings are inherently good or bad. It is whether public support changes the trajectory of beneficiary households, and whether it does so more effectively than alternative or complementary forms of social investment.
This is not an argument for abolishing mass weddings. It is an argument for reviewing and enhancing the policy.
More Than a Decade of Weddings Should Produce Evidence
Kano’s modern state-supported programme dates to 2012, when an initial group of 100 widows and divorced women took part in a government-backed mass wedding; subsequently, additional numbers were supported. Larger rounds followed, including 1,500 couples in 2019, about 1,800 in 2023 and another 1,500 in 2026. Whether Kano was literally the first Nigerian state to adopt such a programme matters less than the fact that it has now run for more than a decade. Enough time has passed to move beyond anecdote.
Kano is also not alone. Kebbi sponsored a mass wedding for more than 300 couples in 2024, combining dowry support with health screening and proposed skills training. In April, Zamfara sponsored 100 couples from vulnerable groups, providing dowry payments, household items and small business support. State-backed marriage assistance has become a recognisable form of social intervention across parts of northern Nigeria, strengthening the case for a common evaluation framework.
The next generation of evidence must answer harder questions: How many marriages from 2012, 2019 and 2023 cohorts remained intact after one, three and five years? How many remained safe and mutually supportive? Did the businesses financed through the programme survive? Did women retain control over the grants provided to them? Did household income, savings and food security improve?
One of the few published assessments of Kano’s early mass-wedding programme provides an important starting point. A 2015 study by Rohana Yusof and Amina Lawal Mashi surveyed 200 women randomly selected from the first 350 women who had participated in the programme in July 2012 and interviewed six officials of Hisbah Board, a state authority responsible for enforcing morals among residents of Kano State and under whose watch all the mass weddings were organised. The authors reported broad acceptance of the programme and perceived economic benefits.
Notably, 43 per cent of the women surveyed identified their husbands’ abandonment of marital responsibilities – including feeding, shelter and children’s education – as a major factor in marriage breakdown. The Hisbah officials interviewed reportedly regarded “crippling poverty amongst couples” as an important underlying factor in the husbands’ inability to discharge basic responsibilities. The study subsequently recommended greater investment in women’s education and productive skills. Yet the study was an early cross-sectional assessment, not a long-term impact evaluation. More than a decade later, the unanswered question is therefore not whether beneficiaries welcomed the intervention, but what became of the families it helped to establish.
The next generation of evidence must answer harder questions: How many marriages from 2012, 2019 and 2023 cohorts remained intact after one, three and five years? How many remained safe and mutually supportive? Did the businesses financed through the programme survive? Did women retain control over the grants provided to them? Did household income, savings and food security improve? Were children from these marriages registered at birth, immunised, and enrolled in school? If this information has already been collected, it should be published in anonymised form. If it has not, the 2026 cohort offers an opportunity to begin.
Ismail Ahmed is a public health physician and social commentator with decades of experience designing and implementing developmental programmes across Nigeria.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
