‘Church should guide, not decide for faithful’

ACK Archbishop Eliud Wabukala speaks to ‘The Standard On Sunday’ writer STEPHEN MAKABILA on the intrigues of the constitutional review and the role of the Church in the process

Q: What is your audit on the ongoing ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns on the Proposed Constitution in relation to the prevailing political situation?

A: I think the campaigns are haphazard. Leaders are articulating issues based on their political agenda while restricting constitutional issues on the periphery. The campaigns we are seeing are not clear on issues at all.

Are there fears the campaigns might divide the country?

The campaigns are not objective. Some issues such as the chapter on land are emotive and should be handled with extra care. There is need for campaigners to stop being sensational on such issues. They should stop displaying raw and potentially divisive emotions.

Please elaborate on your remarks "if we continue this way, we are headed for problems", which you made during the memorial service of the Uhuru Park attack on the ‘No’ camp.

We should not mix campaigns for the clergy and those of politicians. Each group in the ‘No’ camp should carry out separate campaigns and hold separate rallies for us to minimise rivalry and conflict.

Key ACK leaders and other mainstream Church leaders have been conspicuously absent at ‘No’ rallies organised by the evangelicals. Comment.

There are many ways to reach Christians. Holding rallies is just one of them. Various churches are using different strategies to get this message across. I don’t really think it’s an issue of more or less visibility. It’s a matter of different or preferred strategies to pass the message across.

Do you support calls to have referendum campaigns postponed until July 13, the official kick-off?

Postponing campaigns will not achieve much unless regulations of how people should carry out their campaigns are put in place. First, it’s not even known when campaigns started and the public is in confusion. What we need most is regulated campaigns. Every game must have rules.

Some leaders in the ‘No’ camp have claimed the proposed law would lead to religious conflict if passed. Do you agree?

I do not think so. Somebody is just trying to bring in cheap politics because in this country we have never had a religious conflict and we are not going to have any.

What is the current official stand of the ACK as pertains the Proposed Constitution?

The ACK stand remains as expressed on April 29, at the meeting of House of Bishops. ACK remains opposed to the draft law in its current form unless the fundamental issues raised by the Church are addressed. Although the Church leaders have a duty to guide the flock, they have to give Christians the freedom to interrogate the document against the guidance offered by their leaders and then make personal decisions.

Some people think by opposing the draft and holding open-air rallies, the Church is taking a dangerous route that leads it into muddy politics instead of playing referee. Comment.

Open-air rallies are not bad. They are not the preserve of any one group. Furthermore, many churches have been using open-air evangelistic meetings and they have been orderly and peaceful. Those who choose to use this method to pass their message across must be allowed to do so as long as they observe the law. However, the Churches must guard itself against the temptation of being involved in dirty politics. As the Church of Christ, we must always remain true to the gospel having Christ-like character and integrity. The Church can only change if there is a change of approach by the State, to appreciate we have a role to play in matters of state such as constitution making.

If the Government agrees there is room for dialogue with the Church, would you take up the offer?

As a Church, we prefer dialogue to confrontation. We believe nothing is impossible if people dialogue with sincerity and honesty. We have always requested the instruments of review to address our concerns to no avail. The door is not closed for dialogue to ensure the document accommodates the wishes of more Kenyans, and to save our country from the polarisation and hatred that has been witnessed lately. The State has, however, not been serious at times. It should demonstrate its commitment by first stopping the process for us to talk and put it on the right track.

What will be the Church’s role in the post-referendum period if a ‘Yes’ verdict is returned?

We hope and trust a ‘Yes’ vote will not be returned with the outstanding grave concerns of the Church. However, we must all be prepared to accept the verdict from a free and fair vote. The ACK is already focusing on the post-referendum period for reconciliation and pursuit of justice in love. We would like Kenyans to remember that the referendum will come and go but Kenyans must remain as one nation united in love.

Is the on-going crackdown by the Government on hate speech fair?

Kenyans have suffered adversely from hate speech and this should be stopped. We should all be responsible for our utterances. However, we would like to see more fairness in clamping down on hate mongers. Let hate speech consist in the content of one’s pronouncement irrespective of position or political persuasion lest those being rounded up feel they are being targeted for political reasons.

What measures should be taken to contain fall-out and unite the country after August 4?

Kenyans must remain united and focused on the stability of our nation. We must rise above what divides us and embrace that which unites us. Kenyans also need to learn from other countries that have conducted referendums lately such as Canada and Italy to realise that we can and should separate the constitution from the politics of 2012. The winners of 2012 will come and go after a short while but the constitution we embrace will govern us for decades and centuries to come. We must therefore vote with that in mind.