Johnson Suleman’s defence of the late televangelist raises a question that deserves serious examination: how much did the international visitors drawn to Joshua’s ministry contribute to Nigeria’s local economies?
When an international visitor arrives in Nigeria because of a religious ministry, the economic impact rarely stops at the church gate. It travels through hotel corridors, restaurant kitchens, airport terminals, transport networks and the businesses that depend on the movement of people. This is the often overlooked dimension of the debate surrounding the late Nigerian televangelist Temitope Balogun Joshua, popularly known as T.B. Joshua, and it deserves a fair hearing beyond the controversies surrounding his ministry.
Apostle Johnson Suleman has defended Joshua’s influence, reportedly recalling an immigration officer’s observation that the number of foreign visitors arriving in Nigeria through the late preacher’s ministry had declined since his death. Suleman also argued that these visitors brought foreign currency into the country. His claims invite an important economic question: what happens to a local economy when a religious institution becomes an international destination?
I write as someone who witnessed the international traffic surrounding Joshua’s ministry in Ikotun, Lagos, and the commercial activity associated with it. The presence of foreign visitors was not simply a television spectacle or a religious phenomenon. It created demand for accommodation, food, transportation and other services. The economic consequences extended beyond the Synagogue, Church of All Nations to the businesses and individuals serving the surrounding community.
Hotels and guesthouses had visitors to accommodate. Restaurants had customers to feed. Transport operators had passengers to convey. Aviation services connected international travellers to Nigeria, while road transport moved them between airports, hotels, commercial centres and the ministry. Local traders and service providers had opportunities to earn income from the steady movement of visitors. Some international guests also formed personal relationships, explored commercial opportunities and engaged in business discussions during their stays.
These activities matter because small businesses often depend on regular demand to survive. An occupied hotel room generates revenue. A restaurant serving additional customers creates income. A transport operator making more journeys earns fares. Suppliers, employees and other service providers can benefit from the resulting transactions. When international visitors spend money locally, their spending can support livelihoods and circulate through the wider economy.
This is the economic argument underlying Suleman’s defence, and it should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a religious leader discussing a controversial religious figure. The credibility of a claim depends on the evidence supporting it, not simply on the identity of the person making it. If Joshua’s ministry attracted substantial numbers of international visitors, the resulting economic activity is a legitimate subject for investigation.
However, a distinction must be maintained between witnessing commercial activity and establishing its total economic value. The scale of Joshua’s contribution to Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings cannot be determined from anecdotal observations alone. Reliable visitor figures, spending estimates, accommodation records, transport data and comparisons across relevant periods would help establish the extent of the impact. Nor can any decline in visitor numbers after his death be attributed to a single cause without further evidence.
These limitations do not make the question less important. They make a systematic assessment more necessary. Nigeria should be asking whether it has adequately measured the contribution of religious tourism to local employment, hospitality, transportation and international spending. A ministry that attracts visitors from different countries can generate economic opportunities, but the scale and distribution of those benefits should be established rather than assumed.
Joshua’s international reach also raises a broader policy question. Nigeria possesses religious institutions capable of attracting visitors from across national borders, yet the economic value of such attractions depends on more than their popularity. Reliable transportation, public safety, suitable accommodation, efficient visitor administration and effective tourism policies all influence whether international travellers visit, how long they stay and how much they spend.
Religious tourism cannot replace the structural reforms Nigeria needs in agriculture, manufacturing, infrastructure and other productive sectors. Nevertheless, it can complement those sectors by creating demand for local services, supporting small enterprises and bringing visitor spending into communities. The appropriate response is to measure its contribution and develop policies that encourage legitimate economic activity while protecting visitors and residents alike.
None of this requires Nigerians to suspend questions about Joshua’s theology, leadership or the allegations associated with his ministry. Economic influence and spiritual authenticity are separate questions. A large international following does not independently establish the truth of every religious claim, just as controversy surrounding a preacher does not automatically erase the economic activity his ministry may have generated.
The same standard of evidence must apply to Suleman’s allegation that individuals infiltrated Joshua’s ministry while secretly gathering information for outside interests. Such claims require independent substantiation. They should neither be accepted as established fact without evidence nor used to dismiss every account from former members or other critics. A fair examination must consider the evidence for each claim on its own merits.
Ultimately, this debate should be larger than the defence of one preacher by another. It should prompt Nigeria to examine how religious institutions influence tourism, local enterprise and international engagement. It should also encourage a more serious discussion about the economic contributions of institutions whose public significance extends beyond their immediate religious communities.
For those who witnessed the commercial activity surrounding Joshua’s ministry, the economic dimension is not an abstract proposition. It was visible in the movement of visitors and the services they required. What remains to be established through systematic research is the precise scale of that contribution, its distribution among local businesses and the extent to which it affected the wider Nigerian economy.
A nation serious about economic development should neither dismiss an economic opportunity because it is associated with religion nor exaggerate its value because a prominent figure is being defended. It should investigate, measure and learn.
T.B. Joshua’s legacy remains a subject of public debate. But the economic questions surrounding the international visitors his ministry attracted deserve examination on their own terms. The hotels, restaurants, transport operators, traders and other service providers who served those visitors are part of that story. Their experiences should not be overlooked simply because the religious figure at its centre remains controversial.
The pulpit may have drawn the crowds, but the consequences extended into the marketplace. Nigeria should be willing to examine that connection honestly, acknowledge what the evidence establishes and learn how legitimate religious tourism can contribute to sustainable local economic development.
– Inah Boniface Ocholi writes from Ayah – Igalamela/Odolu LGA, Kogi state.
08152094428 (SMS Only)
