THE KENYAN STATE AND THE "SHAKAHOLA FOREST MASSACRE” - Policing and Managing Religious Beliefs

 THE KENYAN STATE AND THE "SHAKAHOLA FOREST MASSACRE” - Policing and Managing Religious Beliefs

Enyinna S Nwauche (Prof)

It is impossible for any State to effectively and sustainably determine citizens’ religious beliefs. But certain aspects of any belief system must be managed. Without being exhaustive, when belief systems threaten the lives of other citizens or even that of the faithful, States have to intervene. The State's intervention to challenge or restrict the outcomes of a religious organisation is often arduous. At the root of the dilemma that faces States is that intervention is a sanction or disapproval of a belief system. If States look the other way in the face of what others may call ‘weird’ belief systems, it is deliberate to ensure that the right to freedom of belief is meaningful. Evaluating the legitimacy or otherwise of certain beliefs is likely a slippery slope that often ends in discrimination and exclusion. Be that as it may, there is a line that religious organisations should not cross, including beliefs and rituals orchestrated to mass harm.  Where children and other vulnerable members of a society are at risk, it is justifiable for a State to intervene where the religious beliefs of their parents and other caregivers are obstacles to health-seeking acts.   

In the aftermath of the gruesome discovery of hundreds of dead members (and still counting) of the GOOD NEWS INTERNATIONAL CHURCH who starved themselves to death in a doomsday conspiracy of mass suicide in Shakahola, near Malindi,  in Eastern Kenya, it is clear that Kenyan State officials failed to protect the right to worship of the dead members of the Church who starved to death in search of salvation.  The discovery of children with evidence of strangulation and smothering adds to the compelling conclusion of dereliction of duty. Media reports of over four hundred missing members of the Church, more than half of which are children, are chilling. 

Even though the Kenyan Police have arrested and charged the church's leader, Makenzie Nthenge, for murder, cruelty, and terrorism, not much is heard of the dereliction of the duty of Kenyan State officials. There is strong evidence that many months before the intervention of the police, they were alerted by locals and civil rights organisations to the strange happenings at the Good News International Church. Media reports allege that some of these complaints were brushed off as in ‘bad faith’ resulting from internal dissension. The totality of available evidence strongly suggests that the Kenyan State failed to protect members of the Church, especially the children.      

What should government officials do when a religious organization’s beliefs and practices pose an existential threat to its members? The first is training around a policy of early warning signs that suggest further engagement. Where there is reasonable suspicion, the State should intervene to protect vulnerable members of that organisation. It will be argued that the right to freedom of religion is private and should not warrant state intervention. That point is correct to some extent but the protection of vulnerable members of a religious organisation is an overriding public matter. Where the intervention of law enforcement officials is ill-conceived, there are many avenues for redress. It may well be that mistakes in State intervention are a reasonable price for the lives of members of the organisation. Religion is a private matter yet so intensely of public importance. To find a line where a State is to intervene in the affairs of a religious organisation is an extremely difficult matter. Yet to sit by and do nothing until hundreds, including children, die is unacceptable.