Why CA delegates rejected a state religion

__________________

After years of instability, civil war, and political turbulence, there was a strong consensus among Constituent Assembly (CA) delegates that the old ways, where religion, ethnicity, and tribal loyalties had been manipulated for political gain, had to give way to something more inclusive and just.

The Constituent Assembly of 1994-1995 became the place to negotiate what that would mean in law.

During the assembly, one of the most significant debates was whether Uganda would adopt a state religion or remain neutral among the many faiths across the country.

The delegates, among others, did not necessarily couch their arguments in formal religious theory; they drew on personal, communal and historical experiences of exclusion, misuse of religious authority or fear of domination by one faith.

At the end of the debate, Article 7 of the 1995 Constitution was entrenched, declaring that: “Uganda shall not adopt a State religion.” But getting there involved contest, fear, compromise and moral urgency.

Bukoto County delegate and former vice-president, Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi, led the charge against the entrenchment of a state religion, noting that “past interference by governments using religion for political purposes” must be “religiously” rejected.

He added that Article 7 must be respected “religiously” in the sense that it should be treated with solemn seriousness.

He was supported by Madi County delegate Jacob Aniku, who argued that: “The Madi people do not want a state religion.”

On his part, Mukono South delegate Abbey Mukwaya said that reasoning of the people as captured by the Justice Benjamin Odoki led Uganda Constitution Commission (UCC), was that: “The Government should desist from interference into religious affairs.”

“This demonstrates that we should limit state intrusion into religious institutions,” he added.

When Okoro County delegate Esther Opoti Dhugira stood up to discuss Article 7, there was a hush. She gave a chronology of how some delegates spoke of the hurt of exclusion.

Muslim communities, she said, felt overlooked. She added that others, especially from Christian majority areas, spoke more carefully about it.

At the end of her submission, she supported constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion. “We do not want our faith demeaned; but we also understand that no one faith should be given the power to impose,” she said.

She was supported by Tororo district delegate Tezira Jamwa, who viewed secularism and neutrality as necessary to protect pluralism.

On the other hand, Kajara County delegate Yona Kanyomozi opposed the move to remove religion from the public sphere. Kanyomozi argued that Article 7 directly undermines traditional moral foundations of the country.

“What then would guide public morality? Would laws drift into relativism?” Kanyomozi argued.

According to Kanyomozi and delegates of his ilk at the time, religion was deeply tied to identity, faith and tribe.

Other delegates argued that although the state’s neutrality was acceptable in theory, in practice, they feared that Article 7 of the Constitution might marginalise religious practices in the community.

Some delegates from minority faith feared of religious dominance, noting that if the state picked one religion, they would suffer discrimination.

When the vote came, Article 7 was adopted in the Constitution with clear wording: “Uganda shall not adopt a State religion.”

But analysts argue that the wording of the Article has left some ambiguities and opened questions: What counts as “adopting a state religion” in practice? If the Government gives preferential treatment to Christian or Muslim institutions like (funding, recognition, holiday observance), is that violating Article 7?

VISION GROUP’S MAGAZINE

To commemorate the 30th anniversary of Uganda’s Constitution promulgation, Vision Group will on October 7 publish a comprehensive magazine that highlights the milestones covered under the Constitution.