Using as a pretext the “fasting sect” incident in Kenya, with French and Japanese influences, several African countries are cracking down on religious minorities. Now, it’s Uganda.
by Massimo Introvigne
“Bitter Winter” has repeatedly called the attention on the deteriorating situation of religious liberty in Africa. As it happened elsewhere, a specific incident—the death of hundreds of members of a Christian group in Kenya that preached extreme fasting—is used to crack down on all religious minorities. We have also received disturbing reports of contacts of African countries with the controversial French governmental anti-cult mission MIVILUDES and of an activism in Africa of Japanese embassies promoting Japan’s anti-cult measures as a model.
Now, it is Uganda. The International Religious Freedom Roundtable is campaigning against a new Ugandan policy. It is a campaign that “Bitter Winter” supports. We have interviewed Scott Morgan, a specialist in US policy towards Africa who serves as Co-Chair of the Africa Working Group for the International Religious Freedom Roundtable.
Q.: What is the new Ugandan policy that raised your concerns, exactly?
A.: An initiative that was first proposed by the Ugandan Government in 2019 that would have the Government regulate how religion is practiced in the country is moving forward and it should be garnering more concern than it currently is. The stated goal of this new policy that is known by the acronym RFO, which stands for Religious and Faith Organizations, sounds benign at first glance. However, there are several major areas of concern that need to be addressed.
Q.: What features of the RFO do you see as dangerous?
A.: The major concern is the proposal itself. This document is not going through the legislative process but is an executive action. This means that the Directorate of Ethics and Integrity, which lies within the Office of the President, will have the decision regarding whether or not a religious institution, whether its a church or other house of worship, will be able to operate. The government would state that the rules are necessary to protect against the activities of “cult” groups.
Q.: The International Religious Freedom Roundtable mentions in particular Clause 8…
A.: Clause 8 of this proposal is problematic for two reasons due to the proposed framework. 1.) The Office of Ethics and Integrity can determine who can set up and operate an RFO through an application and quality assurance policy as defined by clause 8.2; and 2.) It is the intention of the policy to have all RFOs to register under Umbrella Networks or organizations. Having the RFOs registered under this status increases the potential for censorship or even in extreme instances for these organizations to be forced to close.
Q.: I understand that a similar attempt to crack down on minority religions did not succeed in 2020. Why is it proposed again now? Is the “fasting sect” case in Kenya used as a pretext?
A.: Exactly. This path is being taken after an attempt to have Parliament craft the initial set of rules would not even make it out of the Ugandan Parliament back in 2020. So why have these rules returned after this hiatus? You are right, the apparent answer seems to originate from Kenya. As you know, at this time there is a high-profile legal case involving a controversial pastor and 93 other associates who convinced at least 400 people to starve themselves to death to meet Christ. Another piece of evidence that lends credence to this theory is the unique definitions that are employed. Terms such as “born again churches” along with activities that are defined as either “mushrooming” or “out of control” appear to be motivated by this incident, which is still making its way through the Kenyan court system.
Q.: What reforms that are being proposed cause the greatest angst?
A.: The fundamental answer is that these reforms happen to violate Article 7 of the Ugandan Constitution. This article states “The State is mandated to create and to protect one’s chosen faith without fear or prosecution.” The policy proposal argues that the goal is to protect the citizens from “cult” activity, placing this body under the auspices of the Office of the Ethics and Integrity, which answers only to the President and not to the Parliament. This not only presents an opportunity for persecution but one that could be used if a group runs afoul of the President. What is even more concerning is that these policies counteract Article 21 paragraph 2 of the Ugandan Constitution, which codifies the protections defining both equality and non-discrimination. These concerns need to be properly addressed to prevent any ambiguity. Those are some of the concerns regarding the legality of these proposal as defined by the Ugandan Constitution. There is some understanding that some of the issues of possible abuses that have been mentioned could best be litigated under the Penal Law Act. There are several other questions regarding international treaty obligations that these proposals bring to light. Uganda is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, and other human rights instruments. The vagueness of some of the language could present a challenge to Uganda not only at the African Court on Human and People’s Rights in the Gambia but also in front of the UN Human Rights Council.
Q.: Why does this matter?
A.: This is a concern for several reasons. First is how after not having these rules passed by Parliament, they are trying to accomplish this via Executive Action. Secondly some of the rules are very murky in their description and focus. Abuses, if any, should better be addressed by laws currently in force. Thirdly, it will cause others to scrutinize human rights concerns in Uganda more closely. Often power grabs are conducted in the name of safety. These rules follow that same playbook and may take Uganda back to the days of Idi Amin.
