The recent decision by Anambra State Governor, Chukwuma Soludo, to ban public preaching and impose a hefty N500,000 fine on violators has sparked controversy and raised concerns about religious freedom. The governor’s action stems from an incident where he stopped a preacher in a market, citing noise pollution as the reason for the ban. He directed the preacher to confine his activities to a church or rented space, threatening the substantial fine for non-compliance. This move has drawn criticism, particularly from human rights lawyer, Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who represents the Indigenous People of Biafra. Ejiofor argues that the ban constitutes an overreach of governmental authority and infringes upon constitutionally protected religious liberties.
Ejiofor contends that Governor Soludo’s outright ban is a misapplication of power. He emphasizes that the Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to manifest and propagate one’s beliefs publicly. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, Ejiofor reinforces the protection of religious practices, highlighting the freedom to worship, teach, and observe religious customs. He argues that the governor’s action criminalizes various forms of public preaching, including crusades and outreaches, based on an undefined law. Instead of an outright ban, Ejiofor proposes that the governor should explore strategies to regulate public preaching to mitigate noise pollution without stifling religious expression.
The lawyer’s critique extends beyond the legal implications of the ban. He questions the governor’s priorities, suggesting that the focus on public preaching distracts from more pressing issues plaguing Anambra State, such as pervasive insecurity. Ejiofor argues that peaceful evangelists pose no threat and are simply exercising their religious mandate. He draws a comparison to neighboring states like Abia and Enugu, which he commends for fostering development and security without impinging on religious freedoms, urging Anambra to follow suit.
Ejiofor emphasizes the importance of aligning policies with justice, fairness, and respect for fundamental rights in a democratic society. He warns that the ban sets a dangerous precedent that could erode religious liberties and calls for its immediate reconsideration. He concludes by urging wisdom and emphasizes that true leadership involves building and securing, not suppressing and silencing. The core of his argument lies in the balance between maintaining public order and upholding fundamental rights, urging a more nuanced approach to address noise pollution concerns without infringing upon religious freedom.
The governor’s action, while intending to address noise pollution, has raised concerns about its potential impact on religious freedom within the state. The legal and ethical considerations of balancing public order and individual rights are at the heart of this debate. The incident highlights the tension between government regulation and the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, a complex issue with implications for the broader societal landscape.
The situation in Anambra State underscores the delicate balance that governments must strike between maintaining public order and protecting fundamental rights. While addressing noise pollution is a legitimate concern, the outright ban on public preaching raises serious questions about its proportionality and potential impact on religious freedom. The ongoing dialogue between the government and concerned parties like Ejiofor highlights the importance of finding solutions that respect both the need for public order and the constitutional right to religious expression.
