Mao Zedong, pioneer Chairman of the Communist Party of China, had attempted to crush Christianity in his time, but he failed. Though he’s gone, that agenda is a legacy which the modern communist party has continued to drive, but in a more dexterous manner, employing the most incredible political chicanery.
Governor Nasir El-Rufai’s executive bill to regulate preaching and other religious activities in Kaduna may be laudable, yet it goes against the grain of true federalism, the rule of law and democracy to attempt a legislation that disregards the Federal Constitution and erodes the fundamental human rights of Nigerians.
A Yoruba proverb says that the cure for headaches isn’t to cut off the head. But it appears this is what El-Rufai is about to do, by initiating a bill that infringes, perhaps inadvertently, on the rights of a large majority, in an effort to build a safe and peaceful society.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
A section of the bill says, “All cassettes, CDs, flash drives or any other communication gadgets containing religious recordings from accredited preachers may be played in the following places only: (a) inside one’s house (b) inside entrance porche (Zaure) (c) inside the church (d) inside the mosque (e) any other designated place of worship…”
This means that Christians (and of course Muslims) cannot play videos on projected screens, or audio tapes, during their outdoor evangelical and outreach meetings. In this case, the bill is clearly in contravention of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which, in section 38 (1) provides that, “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” It should be noted that, in drafting this provision on the right to freedom of religion, our scribes had wholly adopted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is extensively regarded as part of Customary International Law.
By restricting me to my home or a designated place of worship, the bill takes away my right to manifest my faith in public. This is unacceptable to us Christians; for evangelism is more than a mere doctrine; it’s the lifeline of the Gospel we believe.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
According to the bill, only licensed persons will be permitted to preach in Kaduna. A visiting preacher must obtain a licence that permits him to preach only within the duration of his stay. The bill also prohibits the use of a loud speaker for religious purposes after 8pm in public places. It makes it an offence to use a loud speaker for religious purposes other than inside a mosque or church and the surrounding area outside the stipulated prayer times.
Christians hold outdoor programmes in the evening after work hours, partly so that their members and invitees can attend, and these programmes sometimes run beyond 8pm, with loud speakers in use. The proposed bill seeks to bring an end to such lawful gatherings.
The instruction to preach the Gospel was given by Jesus Christ to every believer, not to Pastors only. Hence, every Christian has the responsibility to preach. But if passed into law, the proposed bill will make it an offence for believers to execute this commission without a licence.
Our right to propagate our faith is clearly enshrined in the Federal Constitution and firmly backed by International Law. The 1999 Constitution provides in its very first section: “(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” According to subsection three, “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Barrister Akiri opined, “…it would be ultra vires the Kaduna State House of Assembly to enact a law requiring a Nigerian who wishes to ‘manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance’ in Kaduna State to obtain a licence, renewable every year, for him/her to establish or sustain a place of worship.”
Another part that sticks out in the bill is the recognition of two major bodies, Jama’atu Nasril Islam and Christian Association of Nigeria, as the regulatory institutions to oversee and preside over all Islamic and Christian groups in the state respectively. They would determine the eligibility of preachers and make recommendations to an inter-faith ministerial committee, which exercises supervisory control over JNI and CAN. Similar committees are to be set up in all 23 local governments of the state.
The elevation of CAN and JNI to a supreme status over all other Christian and Islamic groups isn’t tenable, because no church/mosque is under legal obligation to be subjugated to their authority. Affiliation with any of those bodies is meant to be voluntary, not compulsory. Yet the accent of the bill presupposes that all churches/mosques are subjects of CAN and JNI.
According to Festus Okoye, a lawyer, “The Jama’atu Nasril Islam and the Christian Association of Nigeria enjoy the same incidents of registration and incorporation as any other association registered under part B and C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. They are associations just like any other association recognised by the constitution, and the bill cannot confer them with a special status over and above any other groups similarly registered. For the CAN, there is nothing that makes it mandatory that every Christian denomination must belong to the association.”
Beside these two institutions, other bodies involved in the process of checking the veracity of clergies include the Ministry of Justice, the Police, the Department of State Security, the Civil Defence Corps and the Secretary to the State Government. I think that in the eventuality of its passage into Law, there’s no doubt that this bill will create a great deal of bottleneck for would-be applicants, given the level of inefficiency that mars the civil service structure.
According to the bill, the Inter-Faith Ministerial Committee, which will ultimately approve or reject applications for licences, is to be appointed by the Executive Governor. This is most acerbic to reasoning, as it suggests that El-Rufai is out to take control of religion in the state. In countries that have towed this path, the ultimate goal of their leaders was to subjugate and manipulate the leadership hierarchies of religion for the purpose of establishing personal ambitions, accentuating selfish bias and elongating political interests.
Mao Zedong, pioneer Chairman of the Communist Party of China, had attempted to crush Christianity in his time, but he failed. Though he’s gone, that agenda is a legacy which the modern communist party has continued to drive, but in a more dexterous manner, employing the most incredible political chicanery. Though Chairman Mao couldn’t destroy Christianity, his ideological progenies are determined to manipulate it. In China, state-sanctioned churches are but subjects of the ruling party. Those who choose to worship outside the dictates and imposition of the government must go underground. It’s also noteworthy that the government has begun to explore the idea of developing a “Chinese Christianity,” whose theology must be compatible with the political ideologies of the state.
Now, if this embryonic bill of El-Rufai’s happens to be ratified, who knows how far it will go in transmogrification. What if subsequent regimes latch on to this trend and exploit the legislative system for selfish political interests? What if I woke up one day to realise that the critics of the bill were right all along? That the bill was targeted at preventing the growth and spread of Christianity?
A country like the United States, knit together by its unanimous notion on inclusive freedom, favours the idea of separation of state and church, and guarantees every citizen’s right to exercise their religion. They state their conviction in the First Amendment of the 1787 Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
A fair government in its bid to protect lives and property shouldn’t trample underfoot the constitutional rights of its people. Otherwise, what is meant to be an innocuous liberal reform may be seen as a blatant affront on the beliefs, values and franchise of the people.
…to be continued.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });