‘Don’t criminalise evangelism,’ Lawyer tells FG over public preaching ban

A legal and constitutional debate is gathering momentum following public claims that the National Assembly has passed legislation seeking to prohibit preaching on highways and in public buses while also proposing stiffer traffic fines to be enforced by security agencies.

The controversy has sparked concern among legal practitioners, religious organisations and civil society groups, with some warning that the measures—if enacted in the form described—could trigger constitutional challenges over religious freedom, freedom of expression and the enforcement of traffic regulations.

Among those raising concerns is Goodnews C. Nnadozie, a human rights lawyer and Director of Legal and Public Affairs for the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Abia State, who argues that the proposals could have far-reaching implications for civil liberties and governance.

However, as of the time of filing this report, no official government statement confirming the exact contents of the alleged legislation or whether it has been transmitted for presidential assent was immediately available. The claims have therefore become the subject of growing public scrutiny.

Questions Over Alleged Ban on Public Preaching

According to Nnadozie, any law imposing a blanket prohibition on preaching in public buses or on highways would amount to a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

READ ALSO: Borno Christians join nationwide Black Sunday protest over insecurity

She argued that Sections 38 and 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantee Nigerians the freedom of religion, conscience and expression, adding that restrictions on public evangelism could face constitutional hurdles if challenged in court.

“The State cannot prohibit the content of a religious message merely because of where it is delivered,” he argued.

The lawyer questioned whether there was any empirical evidence linking public preaching to traffic congestion or road accidents, saying regulation—not prohibition—would be a more constitutionally defensible approach.

Rather than banning religious activities outright, he suggested that authorities could introduce measures addressing excessive noise levels, obstruction of public roads and safety concerns.

Concerns Over Religious Discrimination

Another issue raised by the legal practitioner is the potential discriminatory impact of the proposed measure.

She argued that evangelism constitutes a central obligation for many Christian denominations and those public transport systems and highways have historically served as avenues for religious outreach.

According to her, if commercial advertising, political campaigns and other public announcements remain permissible in the same locations while religious preaching is prohibited, questions could arise over equal treatment under Section 42 of the Constitution.

READ ALSO: Christian leaders decry renewed attacks on Plateau churches, demand urgent govt action

Legal analysts note that any regulation affecting only one category of public expression would likely be subjected to judicial scrutiny to determine whether it satisfies constitutional tests of proportionality and equal protection.

Impact on Informal Religious Ministry

Nnadozie further contended that many independent ministers and evangelical groups rely heavily on open-air preaching and public transport evangelism as part of their religious activities.

She warned that an outright ban, without providing lawful alternatives, could significantly affect those ministries.

Observers say such concerns may fuel broader discussions on balancing public order with constitutionally protected freedoms.

Fear of Wider Restrictions

Beyond the immediate proposal, the lawyer warned of what he described as a potentially dangerous precedent.

According to him, restrictions on preaching in buses and highways could eventually extend to other forms of public religious expression if not carefully defined.

Constitutional lawyers contacted by this newspaper note that Nigerian courts have consistently held that while fundamental rights are not absolute, any restrictions imposed by government must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

Debate Over Proposed Traffic Fines

The second aspect of the controversy centres on reports of significantly increased traffic penalties and expanded enforcement powers for the Police and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC).

While acknowledging the importance of road safety, Nnadozie argued that excessively high fines could disproportionately affect low-income Nigerians.

He maintained that penalties should reflect prevailing economic realities while still serving as effective deterrents against traffic violations.

The lawyer questioned what mechanisms would exist to ensure motorists are not wrongly accused or subjected to extortion.

She recommended that enforcement be supported by technological safeguards such as electronic ticketing systems, digital payment platforms and photographic or video evidence wherever practicable.

She also argued that all traffic fines should be paid directly into government accounts rather than to enforcement officers.

“The major concern is not simply the amount of the fines but the integrity of the enforcement process,” he said.

Nnadozie also urged lawmakers to incorporate stronger accountability measures for law enforcement officers.

He proposed the establishment of an independent complaints commission with powers to investigate allegations of misconduct by police officers and FRSC personnel.

The human rights advocate urged the President to withhold assent to any legislation that imposes a blanket prohibition on public preaching without addressing constitutional concerns.