The Religious Organisations Bill of 2024, which proposes to regulate religious institutions in Kenya, has ignited a significant public debate, with church leaders from Kisii County vocally opposing it. Led by the chairperson of the Kisii County churches, Laurence Mwambia, these leaders argue that the bill represents an intrusion into the spiritual and charitable operations of religious organizations. This article explores the context of the bill, the opposition from religious leaders, and the broader implications for the relationship between the state and religious institutions.
The Religious Organisations Bill: A Brief Overview
The Religious Organisations Bill, introduced in Parliament in 2024 and sponsored by Tana River Senator Danson Mungatana, proposes to impose stringent regulations on religious organizations and other charitable entities. According to the bill, religious organizations would be subject to taxation, and leaders of these organizations would need to meet specific qualifications. Additionally, the bill outlines a regulatory framework aimed at combating rogue operators within the religious and charitable sectors.
The bill has garnered support from some lawmakers who believe it will bring accountability and transparency to religious institutions, many of which handle significant financial contributions from their congregations. The proposed legislation seeks to establish formal oversight of religious bodies, ensuring that their operations align with national standards, including taxation policies that would apply to all organizations not meeting specific criteria for tax exemption.
However, this move has been met with strong opposition from various religious groups, particularly in Kisii County, where church leaders have criticized the bill as an attempt to undermine their autonomy.
Opposition from Kisii County Church Leaders
The most vocal opposition to the bill has come from church leaders in Kisii County. Led by Laurence Mwambia, these leaders have condemned the bill as an unwelcome imposition from the West, stating that it conflicts with the spiritual mission of the church. Mwambia expressed concern that the bill’s provisions would hinder the church’s charitable work, including providing financial support to the needy, orphans, and underprivileged children.
“The bill is from the West and it does not comply with God’s presence and God’s spirit,” Mwambia said, reflecting a sentiment that the bill does not respect the unique role religious institutions play in Kenyan society. He further argued that the government should not impose regulations on the church, as religious institutions are fundamentally different from other organizations that generate revenue.
According to Mwambia, churches are not profit-making enterprises, and their financial contributions are primarily directed toward charitable causes that the government itself has been unable to address. “A church is not a Chama to put laws on,” he said, referencing Kenya’s common community savings groups. “It helps raise funds for the needy in the village, the orphans, and pay school fees without the help of the government. There is no reason for them to benefit from us.”
Another religious leader echoed these sentiments, asserting that the bill is motivated by a desire for revenue generation rather than genuine concern for accountability. “Our honorable members of parliament have made a mistake. They think that every avenue is an opportunity to create revenue. Let this bill be removed entirely as the church can regulate itself,” the leader stated.
Concerns Over Autonomy and Self-Governance
One of the central concerns raised by the Kisii church leaders is the potential erosion of the autonomy that religious institutions have traditionally enjoyed in Kenya. The church has long played a significant role in providing social services, particularly in rural areas where government resources are limited. Religious organizations often step in to provide education, healthcare, and social support to vulnerable communities, operating under the assumption that they are free from state intervention.
In response to the bill, the Kisii church leaders emphasized their capacity for self-governance. They pointed out that most churches already operate under umbrella organizations that regulate their activities and ensure ethical behavior among leaders. These umbrella organizations, they argue, are sufficient to provide oversight, and there is no need for additional government regulation.
“They further emphasized the church’s ability to self-govern saying they have umbrellas that can govern every church, and they cannot be regulated by the government but their respective umbrellas,” Mwambia noted.
The Broader Debate: Regulation vs. Religious Freedom
The debate surrounding the Religious Organisations Bill touches on broader issues of religious freedom and the role of the state in regulating spiritual affairs. In Kenya, religion holds a central place in the lives of many citizens, with churches and mosques serving not only as places of worship but also as community centers that provide essential services. For many religious leaders, the bill represents an overreach by the government into areas where it has no jurisdiction.
Critics of the bill argue that imposing taxation and other regulations on religious institutions would violate the constitutional right to freedom of worship. They fear that the state’s involvement in religious affairs could lead to increased control over religious teachings, practices, and governance, infringing on the independence that religious organizations currently enjoy.
On the other hand, supporters of the bill contend that regulation is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability, particularly given the significant financial contributions that many religious institutions receive. There have been instances in the past where unscrupulous individuals have exploited the lack of oversight to defraud congregations or engage in unethical behavior. Proponents of the bill argue that the government has a duty to protect citizens from such exploitation by ensuring that all charitable organizations, including churches, operate with integrity.
The Role of Parliament and Future Outlook
The Religious Organisations Bill is currently in its early stages, having been introduced for its First Reading in the Senate. However, it has already sparked intense debate both in Parliament and in the public sphere. Members of Parliament who support the bill argue that it is a necessary step toward modernizing the regulatory framework for religious organizations, aligning Kenya’s policies with global standards.
Last week, Parliament endorsed the bill, with many legislators voicing support for its objectives. They argue that religious organizations, like any other institutions that handle public funds, should be held to account. The bill’s proponents believe that it will create a level playing field for all charitable organizations and ensure that rogue operators cannot exploit loopholes in the current system.
Despite this support, opposition from religious leaders, particularly those in Kisii County, is likely to intensify as the bill moves through the legislative process. Church leaders have called for the bill to be scrapped entirely, arguing that it represents an existential threat to their ability to operate independently and fulfill their charitable mission.
Conclusion: A Test for Church-State Relations
The Religious Organisations Bill of 2024 is shaping up to be a significant test of the relationship between the state and religious institutions in Kenya. While the bill’s proponents argue that regulation is necessary to ensure transparency and prevent abuse, religious leaders see it as an infringement on their autonomy and their ability to serve the community.
As the debate unfolds, it is clear that the future of religious organizations in Kenya hangs in the balance. The outcome of this legislative process will not only determine how churches are regulated but also set a precedent for the role of the state in spiritual affairs. For now, church leaders in Kisii and beyond are rallying against what they see as an overreach, while lawmakers weigh the need for accountability against the potential threat to religious freedom.
