Moves Toward Constitutional Secularism in The Gambia: Some Reflections
Muhammed Al-Ghazzali is disturbed by the apparent marginalisation of Muslims and Islam in black Africa's most Muslim country.
The Independent (Banjul), May 7, 2001

Ethnicity and religion are amongst the most emotive terms. They arouse passions to unprecedented levels. Many atrocities have, down the ages, been and continue to be committed in the name of the tribe, the group and religion. If patriotism, as is said, is the last refuge of the scoundrel, religion and tribe too have not on occasions ceased to be the shield for promoting secret and extraneous agendas.

We in The Gambia have however been blessed since the creation of this nation as a modern state with interrelations and interethnic harmony. Muslims who constitute the vast majority of the population continue to live peacefully and with respect and dignity with their minority fellow Christians and adherents of other religions. Religious harmony and tolerance have been the hallmark of our community.

Do we not demonstrate our solidarity by joining each other in our respective religious feasts and holidays? Intermarriage and peaceful coexistence cut across ethnic and religious lines. Until 1994 the issue of religion was largely irrelevant in national affairs and in individual relationships.

Every Gambian must however be honest to admit that since 22nd July 1994 religion has taken a higher and emotive profile in an uneasy manner within our body politic. At an individual level too there appears with great regret to be greater individual sensitivity to the religious persuasion of self and others. The religions harmony and respect of old is now being threatened by religious intolerance and disrespect. Letters from private individuals in the correspondence columns of newspapers as well as newspaper headlines and reports bear testimony to this unfortunate and frightening development. The recent front-page headline in the Observer Monday 30th April 'Fajikunda Muslims-Christians at War over Convert' is a case in point. I do not hold any particular religious persuasion responsible for this state of affairs.

The blame for this dangerous state for affairs must be laid squarely at the doorsteps of the current administration. Many Muslims for instance, despite ironically the high profile public manifestation of Islamic adherence on the part of the President the rosary beads etc perceive a pro-Christian and an anti-Islamic bias in the government.

They point to the disrespectful utterances of the President to the effect that most thieves and criminals are Muslims, and in response they retort that in a country where the vast majority are Muslims, the laws of statistics should ensure that that would not only be the case but that also the majority of virtuous men and women would be Muslims. It is simply statistics. Not a plus or minus for Christian or Muslims or others. They point out to what they perceive as the President's disrespectful treatment of Muslim religious leaders televised on GRTS for the benefit of all and sundry when they call on him.

This is contrasted with private not public audiences with Christian and other leaders, which are said to be conducted discreetly and with all protocols and respect observed. The Muslim critics again point out to the irony of having a President who never ceases to manifest Islamic symbols publicly when his regime has facilitated the ascendancy over and above any in the past of church leaders and Christians within the establishment and state machinery out of all proportion to their numerical strength in the country. Critics point out that with Christians occupying the top echelons of the Office of the President, the Education portfolio, Justice Department, Judiciary, Independent Electoral Commission, Ombudsman and the Treasury the essential and critical areas of the machinery of government have been hijacked from the majority Muslims. Surely this, they argue, reflect at best a total of balance and sensitivity and at worst a hidden agenda of promoting the christianisation of the machinery of government. It is not, as it were that there is a lack of qualified, competent Muslims, or persons of other religious persuasions with the requisite experience. Again they point to the laws of statistics, but more importantly to the demands of national unity and integrity, which call for ethnic and religious balance without sacrificing merit and competence in appointments to high public office. With a small majority of Christians comprising no more than twenty percent of the population controlling the reins of the public service, the balance they say is hopelessly and dangerously skewed. Many fear, citing examples elsewhere particularly of Sierra Leone, that this is sowing the seeds for dangerous conflict in the future. The strong influence that local church leaders today wield in the corridors of power from State House to the bottom of the state pyramid and the sympathy with which they are received out of proportion to their numerical strength is very obvious to all keen observers of the political scene.

The government has sometimes been sending confusing messages on religious issues. Despite strong denials by the state media it is now generally accepted that President Jammeh at his last Koriteh meeting with Muslim elders at State House in Banjul did categorically promise to introduce Sharia Law in The Gambia.

The verbatim record of his statement graciously reproduced in subsequent issues of The Point newspaper has corroborated initial reports of his undertaking. The president has been busy putting up or encouraging the construction of mosques in state institutions - from State House to the RVH, Medical School, - with little regard to the question whether people of other religions Christians, Buddhists etc are also entitled to do so.

Both these actions perceived as pro- Islamic are out of step with what was regarded as his encouragement of the high-jacking of the state machinery by the minority religions.

In this confusing and potentially troublesome context, the government has now thrown in some proposed constitutional amendments, which complicate matters further.

On Monday 30th April 2001 the Attorney General and Secretary of State for Justice tabled before the National Assembly some proposals for amending the 1997 constitution.

Ironically some of the proposals for amendment of the 1997 constitution appear to be reverting the government to its true form, its critics argue. This is first the proposal to drastically alter the structure of the Kadis or Muslim Courts in a way that would remove them from the mainstream of the legal system. Some regard this as a step toward diluting the role of Islamic law, which governs the personal transactions of a majority of Gambians. Until now the English Law, the African Law and the Islamic Law have been administered by the same Law System. Now the Islamic Courts are to be hived off.

And ignored?

The more serious proposal for amendment of the constitution is to make The Gambia legally and constitutionally a Sovereign Secular Republic.

In its object and reasons the bill for this amendment of the constitution justifies the secular proposed on the need to make The Gambia a secular republic to re-assure citizens belonging to minority religions. It is difficult to put it mildly for the general public to reconcile a proposal to go Sharia one moment and to go legally secular the next.

What precisely does this proposal mean? What is a secular state? Why is the amendment being introduced now? Is there a need on the basic of our experience, for the protection or reassurance of minority religions in The Gambia? What are the implications for introducing secularity as a legal concept for our body politic and our personal relationships? The proposal is not accompanied by any memorandum, which will clarify for a layperson the necessity, for the objectives and possible practical implication of it.

I am not a lawyer. So I do not know what the legal and constitutional meaning or implication of going secular means. But I entertain serious doubts whether those responsible for framing such a serious constitutional proposal have themselves fully thought out its implications. The way it has been quietly inserted in the bill to amend the constitution, the lack of publicity and public debate and enlightenment leaves much to be desired.

Not being a member of the honourable profession, I can only seek recourse to the dictionary to provide guidance. Chambers 20th Century English Dictionary defines secular as pertaining to the present world or to things or matters not spiritual, as not being concerned with religion. Secularism is further defined as the belief that the state should be independent of religion. The Chambers dictionary's definition of secularism leads me to the layman's conclusion could Attorney General Joof please correct me if I am wrong that the constitutional amendment once passed by the National Assembly would mean that The Gambian state must firstly cease henceforth to be involved in religious matters. Secondly it must treat all religions in the country equally irrespective of their numerical strength. Let me at once make my position clear. I do not believe that secularism is the best thing for this or any other country.

Every state must be based on certain moral values and premises reflecting those espoused by the people of that country. Religion is the greatest value system of all times. Value systems constitute the moorings upon which a state is anchored. Freed of those moorings the state becomes a ship adrift at sea, without any proper control of direction, the absence of secularism is not necessarily a bad thing to be equated with suppression of minority religions. There are sufficient practical examples of intolerance of minority religions in legally secular states. There are adequate examples of religious tolerance and sympathy in states, which are legally religious states or recognise an official religion. If secularism is so good and necessary for good government etc why is the United Kingdom with Her Majesty the Queen as both Head of State and Head of Church? Why is the Vatican State officially and legally a Catholic state whose head of state is the head of the church and whose ambassadors and diplomatic envoys are all members of the Catholic Clergy? Why is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia officially an Islamic State as is Pakistan, as is Morocco etc?

My focus here is not however to challenge the principle of secularism and I do not wish to be side-tracked into that debate. But the point I wish to emphasise is that secularism is not necessarily an essential or good state of affairs. Some of its strongest proponents today come from states where it does not exist.

I do know however that whilst The Gambia may have since independence been regarded as a secular state, it never really has been so legally or constitutionally. No law or constitution of The Gambia has until now, declared The Gambia to be a secular state, or even an Islamic or Christian state for that matter. That omission has not occasioned any suppression or maltreatment of minority religions or in any way resulted in inter-religious conflict or disharmony.

There never has been any need in this country for protection or reassurance of minority or other religions in this country. Why is there such a need now as stated in the proposed amendment? What are the minority religions being protected against? What is there in our national experience that justifies such protection or reassurance? Whose freedom of worship has been denied in this country? Judging from the existing imbalance, which I referred to earlier some would argue that it is now the majority religions which need protection and assurance from the minority!

If my understanding of secularism is right, the practical implication of the constitutional amendment, it would appear, have not been properly adverted to, if at all. For instance could the Attorney General and Secretary of State for Justice, or anyone else for that matter, advise me on the following issues in the event that the proposal becomes law.

Will the Department of State for Religious Affairs be closed and its staff laid off on the grounds that the state should not be involved in religious matters?

Will religious instruction in state schools cease? What will happen to Koranic teachers in primary and secondary schools? Will teaching cease and teachers laid off?

Will government's financial subvention/support of Christian mission and Muslim schools be able to continue? If so, will educational institutions belonging to other religions be entitled to similar facilities? Can a secular state expend pubic funds on religious schools?

Will public funding continue to be available through the Gamworks Agency for construction of schools and training institutions belonging to religious bodies given that this is a publicly funded agency?

What will happen to the involvement of the state in support of religious pilgrimages, whether to Saudi Arabia or to the Middle East? What would be the fate of the Hajj Commission? If such involvement continues, will the state be obliged to provide support for those who wish to make religious trips in India (Buddhists) or elsewhere?

What of The Gambia's membership of international organizations, which have a religious basis such as the Islamic Conference Organisation? The Islamic Development Bank? The Kuwait Fund? The Arab Bank or African Economic Development? Would continued membership of such organisations be compatible with our legal and constitutional secularity?

Some might well ask whether Easter and Christmas vacations for schools will continue or be altered considering as their names imply and the reality shows that they are essentially religious holidays? Or whether we will now enjoy Tobaski and Koriteh school holidays as opposed to the public holidays?

Will all the Arabic writings printed on public buildings since 1994 now have to be erased?

Will all places of religious worship constructed in public/state institutes have to be demolished or in the name of equality of religions will all religions now have to have places of worship at such institutions? If so, at whose cost? Will State House now boast of a church, a temple and a synagogue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Yahya Jammeh Mosque?

When we speak of religions in The Gambia one essentially has in mind Islam and Christianity. But they are not the only religions. I am certain that there is at least one Buddhist, one adherent of Judaism etc. what of the animists? are all these to be treated at par in The Gambia in the name of the equality that should flow from the proposed secularity irrespective of their numbers in the country?

What of appointments to the public service? Will there now need be strict allocation on the basis of equality or equity or will religious considerations be irrelevant? Or will it require that perceptions of imbalance be addressed and remedied?

In The Gambia as in several other countries Saturday and Sunday are officially non-working days. The rationale is that the former is the Jewish Sabbath while the latter is the Christian Sabbath. There is no doubt at all that religious considerations are the basis for these official non-working days. If The Gambia goes constitutionally secular will these be abolished and replaced with two other days in the week, which are neutral in the religious sense? Or alternatively will Friday, in deference to the majority Muslim population, also be made a non-working day if not, why not? Once secularism is made a legal issue are we not running the risk of dragging the courts into all these questions? Will that be good for peace and harmony?

I do not know the answers to these questions. Nonetheless they appear to me to be pertinent to the issue of introducing legal secularism in The Gambia. I do hope, even if I entertain some doubts in this respect, that our policy makers have adverted their minds to them. Perhaps the Attorney General would usefully explain to us the legal implications of the proposal in the context of our own national experience before the Bill is approved and ratified by Parliament.

Many regard the move towards legal secularism combined with the proposal on the restricting of Islamic courts as is proposed in the same bill a step towards legitimating the de facto tilt of the administration towards or its hijacking by the minority religions. Or as enabling such minority religions to exercise a veto power over the majority over all matters of state in the name of equality and secularism? This may perhaps be an extremist and alarmist position, which subsequent events may hopefully not bear out.

Whatever the case, we run the risk of ushering in a period of uncertainty and possible conflict and description to the inter-religious tolerance and harmony with which this country has been blessed since independence. The experience of legal secularism in countries such as Turkey and Lebanon do not serve as an encouragement. We should tread cautiously.

The government needs to suspend these proposals and think through properly their possible implications on the peace tranquility and cohesion of our body politic. Equally important is the need to give time and encouragement for a public debate on such an important issue. It is amazing that extensive constitutional amendments such as these and others are being tabled in Parliament with apparently very little effort to sensitise and involve the general public in a healthy national debate. There seems to me little doubt that most Gambians are content to live in a state which is not officially or legally a religious state. Muslims, Christians or what have you. At the same time however, they would wish acknowledgement of the fact that this country is overwhelmingly Muslim. Government policies and decisions as well as the state of the law must reflect that fact and accept it, without necessarily infringing on the right of worship of all other religions.

The absence of secularity provision in the law from independence to date has never impeded freedom of worship or led to suppression of minority religions in The Gambia. On the other hand the introduction of secularity provisions whose implication do not appear to have been adequately considered appears to be fraught with dangers and with potential for conflict.

I am equally convinced that the majority of Gambians, including myself are content to live in a Gambia in which as at present the criminal aspect of Sharia Law does not apply. But Sharia is not all about Criminal law. Amputations, stoning or otherwise. The Sharia is a comprehensive system of divine justice, which covers all aspects of life and after life. It is contrary to its vociferous and strident critics, a humane system of law and justice. But the fact is also that Muslims are however entitled if they so wish to have the Sharia Criminal law or other aspects of the Sharia personal and commercial law apply to them. It is not the business of their non- Muslim critics who continue to denounce Islam and the Sharia mostly out of ignorance, prejudice and hostility.

Where do we go from here? Firstly I urge the government to shelve its proposed constitutional amendments altogether because of its potential for conflict and turmoil. There is a great deal of suspicion too in the Muslim community that this secularism issue is only a legal cover for consolidating the grip of minority non-Muslims on the machinery of state. If that is not the case, Muslims and others need assurances to that effect.

We do not likewise need the establishment of an Islamic state but greater respect and recognition has to be accorded to that system of law by the government and by leaders of minority religions and to the right of Muslims to be governed by all aspects of that Sharia should they so wish.

The government must take the lead in this effort. I must restore balance and equity in the public service and eliminate the public perception that is biased in favour of the minority. It must treat all religious leaders and their flock with respect and courtesy. It should cease to make religion a negative issue in our national life.

May the Blessing and Peace of Allah be upon all of us and upon our nation. Assalamu Alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatu huu.