On the 9th August,2023, the New Vision Published a colored full page advert by Injeel Ministries petitioning the Speaker of Parliament and Members of Parliament against exclusive rights demanded by the Muslims to slaughter animals which is not backed by the Quran (sic) which is also unconstitutional since Uganda has a secular Constitution. The authors attacked the legality of Islamic Banking and gave a wrong and diversionary interpretation of several provisions of the Quran on the concept of lawfulness of foods in Islam (halal).
Religion is a sensitive aspect in Uganda’s History. In the name of religion, Ugandans went to religious wars in 1888 and thousands of lives were lost at the altar of religion belief, including the Uganda Martyrs. As a result of the wars, political positions in colonial governments, land, schools and social amenities were distributed on the basis of religion. The practice of Muslim to slaughter animals for consumption is believed to be as early as 1860s-1870s when Kabaka (King) of Buganda issued a decree for Muslims to slaughter animals. Despite colonial masters declaring many practices archaic and repugnant, the practice of Muslims slaughtering public consumed animals remained intact in the spirit of promoting peaceful co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Fortunately, Ugandans realized the need for unity and peaceful co-existence as a nation. We realized the need to recognize and tolerate religious and cultural practices of persons, even when we disagree with them. In the spirit of preventing further marginalization of religious minorities, Article 7 states that Uganda shall not adopt a state religion. Article 29 (1) (c) of the Constitution however recognizes the right to practice, manifest and participate in the practices of any religious body or organization in a manner consistent with the constitution.
In interpreting the Constitution harmoniously, the entire Constitution has to be read as a whole with each provision building on each other. The purpose of the legislation should be considered in arriving at the correct interpretation. The spirit behind non adoption of a state religion was to protect religious minorities like Muslims (who comprise only 12%) from being trampled -down by their majority counterparts. Article 29 (1) (c) merely emphasizes the right of every person including the minority Muslims to practice their religion.
Though there is no specific provision in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right of Muslims to slaughter, Article 45 of the 1995 Constitution guarantees other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Among these non-specific rights, Muslims have a right to eat what is lawful as a continuation of their right to religion specifically guaranteed under Article 29 (1) (c).
Religious minorities like Muslims in Uganda need special protection by the State if there is to practice their faith. A case in point, over 250 Muslim leaders convened in Morocco in 2016 and passed the Marrakesh Declaration, 2016 that safeguarded the rights of minority Christians in majority Muslim countries. The Declaration emphasized non violation of the rights of religious minorities in the name of Islam and created an enabling environment Christians and Jews to practice their faith and not just as minorities. If Christians in Muslim majority countries get legal protection, what is wrong with Muslims in Christian dominated countries getting a similar legal protection?
The implication of opening up slaughtering of animals to Non-Muslims will imply that Muslims will have a burden of ascertaining whether the animal is Halal or not before purchase. Like Muslims shunned Christian founded schools in late early 20th Century, opening up slaughtering of animals in public domain to Non-Muslims will automatically make Muslims shun meat altogether. Meat products from Uganda will also lose market in countries that are Halal compliant. As a result of decline in demand, the price of meat and eventually cows will drop and the economy will have a shock. It is therefore in the interest of promoting the economy that this right to slaughter is reserved for Muslims.
In conclusion, the minority religions can only enjoy their Freedom of Religion and Belief if the state puts in place measures to safeguard their rights. These measures include legislation and recognition of social norms that protect and promote peaceful co-existence. Religious extremism manifesting in legislating against the minority should be avoided since it can cause catastrophic legal consequences, like in the past. Muslims are currently enjoying harmonious co-existence with Christians as seen through the Inter Religious Council, attending of joint events, joint advocacy on un favorable policies among others. Muslims have a separate law on marriage, divorce, banking and Article 129 (2) (d) recognizes special courts to handle Muslim family matters. These developments should be considered necessary for unity, and peaceful co-existence and they have been adopted elsewhere. The media should scrutinize extremist adverts that potentially create hatred; If the petition was to the speaker, why should it be published in a National News Papers on Full Page, colored? Does the office of the speaker receive petitions through Newspapers? The intention of the advert may be far from what it purports to convey.
The author is an Advocate & President;
Muslim Centre for Justice and Law
