A CRITIQUE

OF

THE BILL FOR AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL

COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR THE PURPOSE

OF REGULATING AND SETTING STANDARDS AND FOR

RELATED MATTERS.
 INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The Bill for an act to establish the National Council for Christian Education
is the brain child of some members of the legislature in tandem with the
Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). The bill is sponsored by 7
honourable members of the House of Representatives and has been touted
by Senator Binus Yaroe (Adamawa South) to be the solution to
“inappropriate practice” of Christianity.
Senator Istifanus Gyang (Plateau North), has also canvassed support for the bill,
stating that “improperly practised religion” had fostered radicalism, and the bill
when passed would create a curriculum for Christian education. Senator Abba
Moro on his part urged that the bill was ‘apt’ given that some youngsters had
been deceived by radical religious figures.

The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Catholic Bishops Conference

of Nigeria (CBCN) and indeed notable Christian associations and bodies in
a surprising move have thrown their weight behind this questionable bill
and have lauded its merits in very vague and unsubstantiated comments.

In a Tuesday, May 9 statement, the National Director for Education, Youth

and Women Development, Rev. Ozumba Emmanuel Nicodemus a
department of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), stated that the
Bill that has passed the second reading at the Senate is the church leaders’
"token contribution to preserve the sanctity of our faith and the innocence of
our children."

When confronted with the obvious sentiment of the general populace that
the bill was aimed at regulating the practice of the Christian religion as we
know it, Rev. Ozumba denied this suspicion stating that the intent was to
“establish a regulatory council for Christian education that will oversee curriculum
development and monitor what our children are being taught in schools.”

The Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) in their own statement

have urged Christian lawmakers “to support the motion at the floors of their
chambers whenever it is called for hearing or debate.”

REGULATION IS INVERTED CONTROL.

Inspite of the stated purpose of the bill as touted by lawmakers and the
warm reception accorded this bill by formal Christian bodies, there is much
to be wary about in the proposed bill.

The bill has all the makings of an organized attempt to control, restrict,
regulate and contain the free practice of the Christian religion in Nigeria. It
would appear that a handful of political and religious elites are desirous of
reigning in what they consider to be extremist views and practices in the
Christian sector. This action is one which arrogantly accords a certain class
of people with the power to approve or disapprove what they consider the
apprioprate way to both “know” God and to learn about Him and worship
Him; a posture which clearly stands against scriptural teachings.

Should the knowledge and worship of God be contained, restricted and

limited by man?

The practice of Christianity in Nigeria is peculiar. There are many shades of

denominations with diverse doctrines and beliefs. Which one of them shall
be adopted as the “standard”. Is this not another attempt at ecumenism?

There is no bill of this sort seeking to regulate other religions being

practiced in the country. The bill clearly contravenes sections of the
fundamental human rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
as enshrined in our constitution.

If the bill is not a guise to exercise control on Christianity and its practice,
then one would naturally ask, what problem is this bill meant to address?
WHAT PROBLEM DOES THE BILL SEEK TO SOLVE?

The obvious lack of a tangible problem which the bill seeks to solve is the
biggest source of suspicion.

Before now, Christian education has thrived and has been largely peacefull
and successful. There is no significant negative incident in the current
dispensation of Christian curriculum and education which one can point to
as being the reason necessitating a bill of this sort. Ironically, the same can
not be said of other religions co existing with Christianity; the practice of
which has created national security concerns with daily incidences of
extremism that have endangered lives and property on a national scale.

If there is no contemporary problem which is dire and in need of being

remedied, then this bill falls flat on its face on the scale of relevance. One
must therefore conclude that there is more than meets the eye. The
regulation being touted is most likely an inverted way of exercising control
on the practice of Christianity.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE BILL .

The content of the bill does not help matters in assuaging the suspicion that
trails this bill. Below are some highlights of portions which are potentially
detrimental to the free practice of Christianity as we know it.

1. The title of the bill itself is not detailed or specific. The use of the
phrase “regulating and setting standards” is too broad and generic.
What specific areas are being regulated? What is the subjectmatter
for which standards are being set? The phrase “Related Matters”
suggests that the bill is going to be expanded in future to
accommodate whatever the council in its discretion considers to be
within the ambit of “related matters”
This unspecific and broad choice of words is potentially dangerous. It
gives the proposed Council wide latitude of flexibility for a sensitive
subject matter such as this.
 2. The constitution of the board is another item of concern. Section 2 of
the bill provides that the board shall consist of 7 part time members to
be pooled from the five blocs of the CAN and also 5 permanent ex
officio members who are essentially 5 different federal government
agencies. This implies a high level of federal government involvement
in regulating the affairs of Christian religious education and teaching.
It is a subtle contravention on the constitutional principle of separation
of Church and state. Is the government by this bill, not indirectly
adopting their preferred form of Christian knowledge, worship and
practice?
Is it scripturally right that we should hand over the decision making
responsibilities for the practice of our religion to secular authorities?
Is this not a subtle form of syncretism. The Bible which we hold dear
to the Christian faith does not support this type of arrangement.
3.

A Lesson From History.