The Rutherford Institute's
|
Around the World |
|
|
A Brief Historical and Legal Description of Religious Liberty
Formerly the colony of Northern Rhodesia, the Republic of Zambia declared independence from Britain in 1964 under an Independence Constitution attached to the Zambia Independence Act. In 1973, a one-party constitution under the United National Independence Party (UNIP) replaced the multiparty Constitution of 1964. The Constitution provided that the President of the ruling party is the President of the nation. Currently, the country is governed by the President, has a unicameral legislature and a constitutionally independent judiciary.1 In October 1991, President Frederick J.T. Chiluba, head of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy, won the free elections, replacing former President Kenneth Kaunda of the UNIP.Zambia, which declares itself a Christian nation, has a good record of respecting religious liberty but does not always protect other fundamental rights de facto. The U.S. Department of State reports, “Freedom of religion is provided for in the Constitution and is respected in practice. Although President Chiluba has declared Zambia to be a Christian nation, other religions are practiced without interference.”2 According to Professor Charles Mwalimi:
In Zambia, the freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed . . . A wide variety of Christian denominations operate freely in the country. Even though the government specifically prohibits the Watchtower Sect (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) from conducting open air meetings and door to door campaigns seeking converts, the Sect functions openly with other religions. Zambia has a large population of Muslims and Hindus with their own mosques and temples. Legal associations and religious groups operate independently of party control or influence.3Christian Solidarity International, in its map, “Suppression of Religious Liberty Around the World,” states that Zambia commits “no major or minor violations of basic religious liberties.” Religions practiced include Christianity, Animism, Hinduism, and Islam.4
Despite an attitude of religious toleration, the Zambian government occasionally limits fundamental freedoms necessary to secure religious liberty. The President frequently declares a state of emergency, as he did during the elections of 1991, allowing for the legal abridgement of constitutional human rights. The Zambian police, often brutal and abusive, maintain law and order at the command of the Ministry of Home Affairs. In May 1993, the government created a Commission of Inquiry to investigate past and present human rights abuses. And while the Constitution provides for freedom of the press, it allows these freedoms to be limited by law in certain situations. The Penal Code lists activities prohibited despite freedom of the press. Prohibited activities include “uttering words with intent to wound religious feelings.”5 The U.S. Department of State did not report any incidents of the Zambian government using such restrictions to limit religious liberty. The government controls freedom of peaceable assembly by requiring organizations to register with the Registrar of Societies and to apply for permits before they conduct public meetings.
Constitutional Provisions and Legislation Relating to Religion
In August 1991, Zambia’s Parliament adopted a new constitution which prohibited the President from declaring martial law and stipulated that the cabinet members must be appointed from members of Parliament.6 The Zambian Constitution does not protect freedom of religion per se. The following provisions protect rights related to freedom of religion:
Article 11: It is recognised and declared that every person in Zambia has been and shall continue to be entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual . . . but subject to the limitations contained in this Part, to each and all of the following, namely: (a) life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law; (b) freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, movement and association. . . .7Article 19 (1): Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this Article, the said freedom includes freedom of thought and religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(2): Except with his own consent, or, if he is a minor, the consent of his guardian, no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that instruction, ceremony or observance is related to a religion other than his own.
(3): No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for persons of that community or denomination in the course of any education provided by that community or denomination or from establishing and maintaining institutions to provide social services for such persons.8
(4): No person shall be compelled to take any oath which is contrary to his religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner which is contrary to his religion or belief. (5): Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that it is shown that the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required— (a) in the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, including the right to observe and practice any religion without the unsolicited intervention of members of any other religion; and except so far as that provision or, the thing done under the authority thereof as the case may be, is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.9
The Public Order Act of 1955 requires that “persons or organizations wishing to hold an assembly, public meeting, or procession must first apply for a permit.”10
The Zambia Police Act, revised in 1972, sets out the organization and administrative structure of the Zambian Police Force. The Force, which maintains a close relationship with the government, often limits fundamental human rights as it seeks to protect national security, maintain public order and secure the general welfare of the state. The police have been accused of focusing their energies primarily on protecting the existing political regime rather than enforcing law and order, thus encouraging human rights abuses.
Recent Reported Cases of Religious Intolerance
In April 1993, the Registrar of Societies refused to grant registration to a youth and student Islamic party. The groups appealed to the Minister of Home Affairs who upheld the Registrar’s decision, stating that while the Constitution provides for freedom of assembly, it prohibits political parties founded on religious beliefs and grants the Registrar of Society authority to impose proper restrictions on the formation of political parties.11
ENDNOTES
1 U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1994): 325.2 ibid, 330.
3 Charles Mwalimi, “Police, State Security Forces and Constitutionalism of Human Rights in Zambia,” Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law Vol. 21, No. 2 (1991): 233.
4 Edward H. Lawson, ed., The Encyclopedia of Human Rights (New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 1991): 1711.
5 U.S. Department of State (1993): 328.
6 Timothy Ferguson, “Zambia,” in Albert P. Blaustein and Gisbert H. Flanz, eds., Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, Inc. 1992): v.
7 Ferguson, 18.
8 ibid, 28.
9 ibid, 29.
10 U.S. Department of State (1993): 329.
11 ibid.
Source: Handbook on Religious Liberty Around the World, Pedro C. Moreno, Editor. Charlottesville, VA: The Rutherford Institute. This report is reprinted here by special arrangement with the Rutherford Institute and may not be reproduced or mirrored on another webside without written permission of the Rutherford Institute.
| Top of page |