April 4, 2016
THE MANY ABSURDITIES OF THE KADUNNA STATE RELIGIOUS PREACHING BILL, ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY NOT WITHSTANDING.
By: Caleb Ekene Onwe Esq
The Kaduna State government has recently been beamed with the search light of critics for what many termed anti-religion law which the government introduced through its function of executive bill in the State House of Assembly. The bill when passed into law seeks to among other things regulate religious activities in the state irrespective of the religious faith one professes.
In my previous article on the preaching bill titled ‘’Kaduna State Religious Preaching Bill and Matters Arising’’ and published in the blog of the law firm of my employer, Perchstone & Graeys (greymile), I questioned the constitutionality of the proposed bill and whether it can in the light of many religious crises that has bedeviled the state be justified and pass the constitutionality test under s. 45(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Nigeria is undoubtedly a highly religious country and therefore, it was not a surprise when voices went loud against the bill both by religious leaders and human right activists. In this scenario, many has argued for or against the constitutionality of the bill when passed into law. But assuming without conceding that the bill when passed scales through the hurdles of constitutionality test set in s.45(1) of the 1999 CFRN, will the law not fraught with many ambiguities and absurdity which may result to creating more religious problem than it seeks to solve?
I will therefore attempt to outline the absurdities that the Bill will be fraught with when passed into law which will negate its altruistic motive thus;
First is the recognition of two major religious organs in the state to regulate religious activities by s.4 of the bill. The macho bravado of the action is commendable if you have been conversant with replete religious crises in the state in time past. But however, the question of the constitutionality of the section has been heavily debated upon my many critics vis-à-vis s.10 1999 CFRN which provide for the secularity of the Nigerian state.
If it passes the test of this section (i.e. s.10 1999 CFRN), another issues that will be ominous is the determination of the rights of other religious groups who do not belong to any of the major religion organ as captured in the bill. This is because, in the Muslim religion, there are many denominations likewise the Christians. What happens to those other Muslim denominations, catholic members and other Christian denominations who are not part of JNI/CAN respectively as at today. What is also the faith of traditionalist and other religious faithful whose interest are not captured in the bill in the light of the entire provisions of the bill which limits how one goes about professing his religious faith? Will they become automatic transgressors of the law by the operation of the law? This is the first cancerous virus in the life of the bill.
Secondly, by s.5 of the bill, the two committees established under s.4 (2) of the bill (i.e. JNI & CAN) are to issue license to preachers to elapse for a year. This section is also not spared by clog of ambiguities that will mar the law on arrival in that it is clear by the wording of the bill that licenses are to be issued per each preacher depending on the yardstick used to determine who qualifies as a preacher. But I ask, is it not share ambiguity and wanton absurdity that preachers like Reverend fathers and others in churches like, Catholic, Anglican and other big denominations will be individually lined up to get licensed in other to be able to preach. It is not arguable that it will be fair to a single man pastor churches but not to the big churches. It would have made more sensible if a single license cover churches with pool of preachers like the Catholics, Anglicans and other big denominations.
Thirdly, s.9 of the bill limit places where all cassettes, CDs, Flash drive or any other communication gadgets containing religious recording may be played to include inside one’s house, inside entrance porch (Zaure), inside the church, inside the mosque and any other designated place of worship. It therefore, means that once one plays a religious recording inside his car, he is guilty of the law when passed. The worst of the absurdity is that the bill did not define what a religious recording is and thereby placing it at the discretions of the enforcers of the envisaged law. Certainly, this will further occasion deep intolerance in the state.The bill is therefore too narrow in this regard.
The fourth absurdity is found in s.10 of the bill which provides that any cassette containing religious recording which abusive language is used against any person or organization or religious leaders (past or present) is prohibited. Then it again failed to define what an abusive language is or what yardstick to be used to determine same.
The fifth tier of the myriads of absurdity is the offences that may be committed by a preacher in s.12 of the bill which includes preaching without valid license, playing religious recording outside designated places, using loud speaker for religious purposes after 8pm in public places etc. as it is, the offences created are not my concern but what concerns me is the determination of who fits in as a preacher in the bill considering the fact that as a religious porous nation, we have many itinerant preachers who has no church or any particular place of worship. Does the bill allow them to preach in public places and up till 8pm and will the bill allow them as preachers without attaching to any denomination? What is the yardstick for measuring who qualifies as a preacher in the bill?
The last of the absurdity is in s. 14 of the bill which vest jurisdiction to try the offences created by the envisaged law on the Sharia Court and Customary Court for Muslims and Christians respectively. I have perused through the articles of Mr. Inibehi Effiong titled ‘’Kaduna State Religious Preaching Bill: Resolving the Constitutional Controversy’’ as well as the rejoinder by Mr. Olugbenga Ominiyi Olatunji particularly on this point and I totally agree with the submission of the former on this particular point. Reason is that the tradition and religion of the Muslims have an inextricable symbiotic cohesion and therefore makes it easier for the Sharia Court to assume jurisdiction under the bill.
However, on the other hand, the same reason is not applicable for Christians because Customary Court only has the duty of interpreting and applying the customary law of the people and anybody who is a Christians except by consent is not bound to submit to the jurisdiction of the court because the scope is at par to each other. More so, judges of the court are legal practitioners and accessors who are vexed with the custom and tradition of the people and not on the ecclesiastical conduct and living of Christians. It is however, clear that the court in this circumstances will seem to suffer some setbacks as regard the exercise of the jurisdiction vested on it by the bill if same is not amended.
In the final conclusion, I humbly submit with due respect to other divergent opinions that considering the growing religious extremism and intolerance in the country, Nigeria as a country is even due to bring up a law that will balance the desperate quest for religious supremacy among the religious faiths in the country. With particular regard to northern states (Kaduna inclusive) where extremism has raid more predatory incursion to lives and property, the bill as presented by the Kaduna State governor is due to balance such supremacy battle if it will be enforced in holistic and the most altruistic objective. But my fear is whether the bill will see the light of the day when passed as it has many hurdles against it.
However, a proper re-examination of the provisions of the bill by good draftsmen can make a big difference to the bill by bringing its provisions to conform with the constitution and also removing the points of absurdities and ambiguities mentioned above.
Caleb Ekene Onwe Esq is a legal practitioner and a human right activist in the law firm of Perchstone & Graeys Solicitors (Abuja office)
He can be reached @Email: [email protected], phone+2348036490411
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });