Posted by nigeria on
In the wake of the unfolding drama concerning Christian Praying Assembly and its controversial Reverend Emeka King, AYO ATSENUWA asks what disposes....
In the wake of the unfolding drama concerning Christian Praying Assembly and its controversial Reverend Emeka King, AYO ATSENUWA asks what disposes people to gullibility and what in our social structure makes them so vulnerable to charlatans
The recent news about the self-styled modern day Jesus, Reverend Emeka King of the Christian Praying Assembly (CPA) located in Ajao Estate in Lagos State raises so many issues about religion, faith and law. In particular, it raises the questions, 'What is right and what is wrong in terms of teachings and beliefs? And how do we recognize right from wrong?" Other relevant questions include 'What role ought the law to play in regulating religious assemblies and their practices? How can members of society be protected from harm by law where an assembly's doctrine permits practices inimical to the well being of individuals?"
The story according to the various newspaper reports goes thus: a young lady by the name Ann, was a worshipper in Reverend King's church and resided with him alongside others in his home allegedly with the permission of the other church elders (although in what capacity she did remains unclear). Beyond this point, what is the true position is contentious. While the complainants who made a report to the police allege that she and some others were set ablaze by Reverend King, the Pastor denies this and claims instead that there was a fire incident from the generating set in his home and Ms. Ann was only an accidental victim of the incident. Hopefully, the true facts will be teased out of available evidence as the case goes to trial.
What is not contention with the admission by Reverend King is the fact that he makes a practice of 'flogging" his disciples as part of the disciplinary process for misconducts such as fornication. It would appear also that between him and some of his members, there is the belief that 'flogging by him" also has some spiritual quality as he is reported to have said, some sick members come to him and ask to be flogged. Other accounts credited to neighbours of the church and those who have had some interactions with it allude to other practices such as deification of Pastor King (meaning worship of him as God or as a god), unruliness and disregard for other people's rights, often tending towards violence. As a lawyer, I would not want to dwell on the unproven allegations and stick with that which is admitted by Reverend King himself - that he flogs members of his church. Many have asked if there is nothing the law can do to stop such practices and help those who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, subject themselves to what is thought to be a doctrinal error and for that reason have become vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
What is flogging? Often used interchangeably with caning, flogging is beating a person or a thing with a cane or other weapon as a lash or whip. However, in ordinary usage, flogging suggests that the beating is of a severe nature. If that be so, we might ask, can flogging be part of the redemptive aspects of the Christian religion which Reverend King claims being part of? After all, traditionally, parents and those who stand in loco parentis (a legal term meaning 'in place of the parent") have the power of discipline extending to corporal punishment (here meaning: caning, flogging, etc.) over their children or wards and it is thought that this is a redemptive act on the part of a loving parent. There is, however, a counter position to that which argues that there is evidence to show that corporal punishment can do more harm than good and is unsupportable in modern times. Again, we consider that there is no reason to engage that debate here. Rather, we remain with the question simply, 'Does a Pastor have such status as loco parentis in relation to members of his flock who often are adults?" Nothing throughout law suggests that such a category is recognized so I dare say that the answer to this is 'No". However, this is not to say that where individuals by an article of faith or doctrine subscribe to such belief, the law can preclude them from such belief. Indeed, there is evidence that many within the Christian fold have moved from the position of revering the clergy as God's anointed and moved into the realm of personalizing the relationship they share with them and redefining it in terms of the father/child relationship. Whether this is right or wrong remains an issue of belief, one over which law has no control simply because everyone has a human and legal right to freedom of religion, which entails the right to freedom of belief whatever what one wants or is persuaded of and the interests of protecting society from harm including exploitation and abuse.
Various international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and People's Rights as well the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria affirm as a fundamental right the right of every person to religious freedom. This right permits not only freedom of belief or thought but also the right to practice in conjunction with others of like mind what one believes. The Nigerian Supreme Court has upheld this right to freedom of religion even where the effect is personal harm in the case of OKONKWO v MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL when it held that a person who is a member of the Jehovah's Witness Sect could refuse blood transmission in exercise of religious freedom and such refusal should be respected by medical personnel. The simple argument is that a person who believes that his or her God frowns on blood transfusion and would rather suffer earthly pain, even unto death while looking to a heavenly reward should have such belief respected even by those who do not share it.
But does this mean that the State and indeed, the law can do nothing to limit the scope of the freedom of religion. For example, we might ask, 'Can a person accede to death through a suicide pact as part of a religious belief?" The world has seen a couple of instances of this as in the celebrated cases of Reverend Jim Jones sect in Guyana (1978) and David Koresh's group in Waco, Texas (1993). Unfortunately, there has been no instance in which the leadership survived such pact and so it is difficult to answer the question what would the law do in consequence of such death to the group's leader? Relating this to the on-going case, were Ms. Ann to have survived her injuries for long enough to tell us that she consented to being burnt as part of penance or for its redemptive purpose, would the law still allow the trial of Pastor King? The answer to this to my mind is, 'Yes" albeit a limited one. Under the Criminal law in Nigeria, that is, under both the Penal and Criminal Codes, a person cannot consent to murder although a person can well consent to assault.
If in expressing the freedom of religion, there is a threat to society's security such as where violence is preached and/or practiced or where people are subjected to hypnosis involuntarily thereby bringing their will under the control of another who abuses that power and such can be established by evidence, the law can come in. The latter is more like what is argued by those who ask the law to come in to do something to prevent charlatan churches and Pastors such as Reverend King. The challenge, however, is 'how to establish by objective evidence such hypnosis". A person operating in that kind of a state is likely incapable of identifying his or her state as such and would not be able to testify to prove the fact. Whether hypnosis can even be objectively proven is debatable.
Is the State, indeed, the law utterly helpless in relation to regulating assemblies of faith and their practices? The answer to this question is also 'No". In fact, the practice of registering church in law is designed to enable the State keep track of such organizations.
The process of registration entails publishing in advance the intention of such an organization to register and to give members of the public who have helpful information, particularly such information as may be used to establish why such an organization should not be registered, opportunity to come up with that information. Unfortunately, over the years, there has been little, if anything at all forthcoming in this regard. This might also be because people, in fact, do not have the useful information as often, doctrinal errors are rarely manifested at the inception of a group. Rather, they progressively evolve.
It is submitted that rather than look to law, it might be more helpful to ask questions such as 'What is it about some peoples' psychological make-up which disposes them to gullibility and renders them vulnerable to charlatans like Reverend King and their teachings? What is it about the social structure which makes individuals desperate and similarly vulnerable?" These are questions that might advance us further than asking law to regulate what people believe and subscribe to in practice as a result of their belief. The assumptions underlying this position is that it is easier to address those pre-disposing factors than to force on law a role that undermines the principles of human rights and justice in a diverse and multicultural society.