The utmost concern of any responsible government is to protect the lives and property of its people. This is the basis for the initiation of the Religious Activities Regulation Bill, which is aimed at curbing the despicable acts of certain elements of society who exploit religion to disrupt civil order, stir up wars and bring untold havoc upon humanity. The proposed bill therefore finds anchorage in the ideal that public safety and civil order are of paramount importance to a progressive government. This is unarguably a brilliant premise for Governor El-Rufai's attempt to address the anomaly of religious extremism, which intermittently threatens the peace of Kaduna.
Unlike many observers, commentators and stakeholders who, in their own right, have vehemently criticised the Religious Activities Regulation Bill put forward by the Kaduna State Governor, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, I haven’t found a justifiable basis to condemn the bill “outright”.
The said bill, which is currently undergoing statutory legislative process in the Kaduna State House of Assembly, is a modified version of an edict that had been enacted in 1984 by the then military governor of the state, with amendments made in 1987 and 1996. The law was promulgated as a result of the religious clashes which broke out in Northern Nigeria in the 1980s due to hate sermons and inciting speeches by radical, extremist clerics.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
On 18 December, 1980, the very first religious riot occurred in Kano, sparked off by leader of the Maitatsine movement, Muhammadu Marwa. The catastrophe claimed 4000 lives and much damage on property. From that time, many northern states, particularly Kaduna, which was a melting pot for disparate ethnic nationalities with divergent religious backgrounds, would witness many occasions of unrest and killings instigated by religious fanatics. Through the Kafanchan bloodbath of 1987, the ABU Zaria hostilities of 1988, the Kaduna ethno-religious feud of 1999, to the present-day terror of Boko Haram, too much devastation has plagued the nation.
The utmost concern of any responsible government is to protect the lives and property of its people. This is the basis for the initiation of the Religious Activities Regulation Bill, which is aimed at curbing the despicable acts of certain elements of society who exploit religion to disrupt civil order, stir up wars and bring untold havoc upon humanity.
The proposed bill therefore finds anchorage in the ideal that public safety and civil order are of paramount importance to a progressive government. This is unarguably a brilliant premise for Governor El-Rufai's attempt to address the anomaly of religious extremism, which intermittently threatens the peace of Kaduna.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
By this singular move also, El-Rufai distinguishes himself as a proactive leader, abolishing the reactionary style of many past governors who were inclined to making reparations after the evil deed had been done by the extremists.
However, an unprecedented spate of criticisms has greeted the bill on account of its provisions. Though it seeks to regulate religious activities of both Christians and Muslims in the state, most of the reactions against it are coming from the Christians, while a few Muslims express reservations.
Commentators have stated that the bill contravenes existing provisions of the Federal Constitution (particularly section 38 (1), which spells out citizens’ right to freely observe and propagate their faith), a national document binding on all federating units, including Kaduna State. This claim is substantive, as I have perused critical aspects of the bill.
Meanwhile, other notable voices are forthright in their claim that the bill is aimed at preventing Christians from preaching the Gospel in Kaduna. In his observations, Barrister Chris Akiri not only stressed on the unconstitutionality of the bill but added that “(It) is aimed at the growth or spread of Christianity, the mention of Jama’atu Nasril Islam and mosques in it, notwithstanding. In order words, the inclusion of those names—JNI and mosques—are a mere fig leaf, a veneer, to cover the real intention of the Bill, designed, doubtless, to stop the growth of Christianity.”
Governor El-Rufai has denied all such allegations, maintaining that he’s committed to ensuring that hostilities fuelled by religious extremism and hate speech no longer threaten the state. He said in an interview that the objective was “…to regulate and ensure that those that are given the opportunity to preach at least know what they are doing, have a level of responsibility to develop society rather than divide it. This is our goal; we don’t have anything against anybody or any religion.
He continued: “Some sections of the media made it appear as if the law was drafted against Christianity. It’s most irresponsible! For people like that, I have nothing to say except to leave the matter to God. God knows our hearts. God knows what we want to achieve. That is all I have to say.”
Personally, I have reservations about the bill, as some of its provisions put a hindrance on the freedom of Christians to evangelise. The workability of the bill is another issue of concern, given the complex denominational structure of Christianity in Nigeria. The bureaucracy that will accompany the reform is also a factor for consideration. Among other things, the possibility of having religion under the manipulative control of state in the near future is disturbing, as in the People’s Republic of China, where subservience to the ruling socialist party is a prerequisite for obtaining church licences. These are the thoughts I examine in part two. But so far, judging by the merit of Governor El-Rufai’s stated intention, there’s no basis to utterly condemn his proposed bill.
Joseph Ononaye is a Christian.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });