The governor of Anambra State, Professor Chukwuma Soludo, ignited a controversy by publicly condemning the use of loudspeakers for religious preaching in marketplaces. In a widely circulated video, he accused preachers of noise pollution and public disturbance, warning that such activities would henceforth incur a hefty fine. He argued that marketplaces are not designated for religious services and that those wishing to preach should confine their activities to churches where willing congregations can gather. This declaration sparked immediate backlash, with religious leaders and members of the public criticizing the governor for allegedly infringing upon religious freedom, a constitutionally protected right.
Archbishop Osazee Williams, International Secretary of the Ecumenical Synods of Bishops, Archbishops, Apostles, and Senior Clergy in London, strongly condemned Governor Soludo’s directive, characterizing it as an attack on Christianity. He questioned the rationale behind restricting preaching in public spaces, arguing that such a move could have detrimental effects on society. He emphasized that the marketplace, like any other public space, is part of God’s creation and therefore amenable to the dissemination of His word. Furthermore, he highlighted the potential for public preaching to reach individuals who might not otherwise attend church, offering them opportunities for spiritual transformation and positive life changes.
Archbishop Williams also underscored the social benefits of public preaching, particularly its potential impact on individuals involved in criminal activities. He posited that exposure to religious messages in marketplaces could lead to moral reform and a reduction in crime. He suggested that instead of outright prohibition, Governor Soludo could have explored alternative solutions such as requesting preachers to lower their volume or utilize methods that minimized noise disruption.
Most Reverend Isaac Olawuyi, Archbishop of the Methodist Church of Nigeria in Lagos, echoed these concerns. While acknowledging that the governor’s decision might have been influenced by the inappropriate conduct of some preachers, he contended that the decree constitutes an affront to Christian freedom. He argued that the governor should have consulted with Christian stakeholders or implemented measures to regulate the activities of unscrupulous preachers instead of imposing a blanket ban on public preaching. He maintained that Christians have a mandate to spread the gospel wherever they can, as long as they do not violate the law or cause public disturbance. He urged the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) to challenge the governor’s directive.
Archbishop Olawuyi further questioned the governor’s rationale, pointing out the inconsistency of restricting religious preaching while permitting other noisy activities like political rallies in the same public spaces. He suggested that the governor’s words might have been misconstrued or that he was being influenced by external pressures. He advocated for dialogue between the governor and Christian leaders to resolve the issue.
Public opinion, as expressed on social media platforms like Facebook, also largely condemned the governor’s stance. Critics argued that singling out religious preaching for noise pollution concerns while ignoring other equally loud public activities like political rallies and traditional festivals was discriminatory. They questioned the criteria for determining who constitutes a “fake” pastor or prophet and emphasized the importance of upholding religious freedom as a constitutional right. The prevailing sentiment was that the governor’s directive unfairly targeted religious groups and should be reconsidered.
The controversy highlights the complex interplay between religious freedom, public order, and the regulation of noise pollution. While the governor’s concerns about excessive noise in public spaces might be valid, his approach has been widely perceived as an overreach that infringes upon constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Critics argue that a more nuanced approach, involving consultation with religious leaders and the implementation of targeted regulations rather than blanket bans, would be more effective in addressing the issue of noise pollution without unduly restricting religious expression. The debate continues, raising important questions about the balance between individual rights and the need to maintain order in public spaces.
