Requirement for training for religious leaders is discriminatory

In the last one and a half months, the media has relentlessly broadcast the ongoing efforts of officials from the Directorate of Ethics and Integrity to conduct nationwide consultations to enact a Religious and Faith-Based Organisations Policy.

It has been stated that the main rationale for the enactment of this policy is to protect Ugandans from manipulation and exploitation by some religious leaders.

The Directorate cites lack of training of the current leaders in outlining some of the causes for the ongoing questionable gaps, fights amongst religious leaders and purported exploitation as well as cult tendencies.

With the policy pushing for establishment of a board which will not only approve registration of religious organisations, but also recommend the suspension of operating licences, religious leaders ought to proceed with caution in regard to some of the requirements proposed under the policy.

Whereas the requirement for training seems to have a well-grounded motive of equipping religious leaders with the necessary skills and right doctrine before they can minister to the congregants, it is premised on a discriminatory motive. The first country in East Africa to come up with a requirement for training of religious leaders was Rwanda in early 2018. Following a presidential directive, close to 500 churches were closed down in March 2018 for failure to comply with the requirement of theological training for pastors.

Whereas the order was faithfully executed against the churches, the same energy was not extended to other religions. Mosques were closed for using loud speakers to summon congregants for prayers, but none was shut down because a sheikh had not attained proper training in a qadhi school. No shrine was shut down because a traditionalist operating it did not receive training from a school of wizardry.

It appears that Uganda wants to adopt similar measures targeting specific religious groups. If this were not the case, then the directorate should prove that similar measures will be taken across all religions.

Why is it that the directorate and proponents of the policy will recognize that traditionalists draw their methods of practice from spiritualism and will not require them to produce a certificate of completion of training in wizardry, but will not do the same for other religions?

With freedom of religion and conscience, an individual could wake up tomorrow believing that a tree is his god and he ought to worship it by offering incense and dancing around it. Internationally, this individual can practice his/her religion.

However, in Uganda, with the passing of the policy, this individual will have to obtain a certificate of training from a recognised school indicating that he/she has successfully been trained in the rightful way of worshipping the tree and winning over new believers. The members of the RFO Board will have to sit and consider whether the right doctrine has been taught to this individual. Since he/she is the first believer with no training, there is a high likelihood of denial of registration.

Then again, who cares about a one-man religion when there are several “mushrooming” churches within hundreds of metres from each other – as was stated in a recent media publication.

Who will care about a one-man religion or a few tens of people gathered when there are religious gatherings amounting to the thousands on a weekly basis and causing a decline to the number of followers of the five traditional religions that were initially recognised during Idi Amin’s regime?

The groups of those that were initially relegated to worshipping in hiding are flourishing at the expense of those that were initially allowed to practice in the open. The doctrines are divergent and causing a stir to many. The Directorate and its proponents are filled with a hunger to curb the ever-growing groups. What better way to muzzle them than under the guise of the logical need for theological training?

Lynn E.Olepus
[email protected]