By Kevin Oucho | December 16, 2025
The government has postponed planned public participation forums on proposed laws seeking to regulate religious organisations, following strong resistance from church leaders across the country.
The forums were meant to gather public views on the Draft Religious Organisations Policy, 2024, and the Draft Religious Organisations Bill, 2024.
According to an earlier government notice, the meetings were scheduled to take place between December 15 and December 19, 2025, in several counties.
Some of the regions listed for the forums included Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru, Kisumu, Eldoret, Machakos, Nyeri, Embu, Kakamega, Kilifi, Garissa, and Isiolo.
Some of the regions listed for the forums included Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru, Kisumu, Eldoret, Machakos, Nyeri, Embu, Kakamega, Kilifi, Garissa, and Isiolo.
The exercise was intended to give Kenyans a chance to share opinions before the proposed law moved further in the legislative process.
However, shortly after the announcement, religious leaders from different denominations voiced strong objections, warning the government against what they described as interference in matters of faith.
On Monday, December 15, senior clergy addressed the media and called for the immediate withdrawal of the proposed legislation. They accused the government of attempting to control churches and mosques under the guise of regulation.
Some preachers argued that the proposed law threatened freedom of worship, which is protected under the Constitution. Others said religious institutions are already self-regulated and do not require additional oversight from the state.
“We are doing our work well in ministry,” one preacher said during the press briefing.
However, shortly after the announcement, religious leaders from different denominations voiced strong objections, warning the government against what they described as interference in matters of faith.
On Monday, December 15, senior clergy addressed the media and called for the immediate withdrawal of the proposed legislation. They accused the government of attempting to control churches and mosques under the guise of regulation.
Some preachers argued that the proposed law threatened freedom of worship, which is protected under the Constitution. Others said religious institutions are already self-regulated and do not require additional oversight from the state.
“We are doing our work well in ministry,” one preacher said during the press briefing.
“This bill shows a lack of understanding of faith and how religious institutions operate.”
Religious leaders also reminded the government of the strong support churches gave during the last general election, insisting that such trust should not be repaid with policies they view as restrictive.
The mounting pressure appears to have influenced the government’s decision. On Tuesday, December 16, officials announced that the public participation forums had been postponed.
While confirming the postponement, the government did not give new dates for the forums or clarify whether changes would be made to the proposed law. It also did not indicate whether the bill could be withdrawn entirely.
The Draft Religious Organisations Bill seeks to introduce a formal framework for registering, monitoring, and regulating faith-based institutions. The government argues that the move is necessary to promote accountability and protect citizens from religious extremism.
The proposal follows past incidents that raised concerns about unchecked religious practices, including cases where vulnerable followers were allegedly misled or harmed by extremist teachings.
If passed, the bill would establish a Religious Affairs Commission tasked with overseeing religious organisations. It also proposes the creation of an Office of the Registrar of Religious Organisations to manage registration and compliance matters.
Supporters of the bill argue that regulation would help restore public confidence in religious institutions and prevent abuse. They insist that the aim is not to interfere with worship but to ensure transparency, especially in leadership and finances.
However, critics fear the proposed structures could give the government excessive power over churches and mosques. They worry that future administrations could misuse the law to silence religious voices or influence doctrine.
Religious leaders also reminded the government of the strong support churches gave during the last general election, insisting that such trust should not be repaid with policies they view as restrictive.
The mounting pressure appears to have influenced the government’s decision. On Tuesday, December 16, officials announced that the public participation forums had been postponed.
While confirming the postponement, the government did not give new dates for the forums or clarify whether changes would be made to the proposed law. It also did not indicate whether the bill could be withdrawn entirely.
The Draft Religious Organisations Bill seeks to introduce a formal framework for registering, monitoring, and regulating faith-based institutions. The government argues that the move is necessary to promote accountability and protect citizens from religious extremism.
The proposal follows past incidents that raised concerns about unchecked religious practices, including cases where vulnerable followers were allegedly misled or harmed by extremist teachings.
If passed, the bill would establish a Religious Affairs Commission tasked with overseeing religious organisations. It also proposes the creation of an Office of the Registrar of Religious Organisations to manage registration and compliance matters.
Supporters of the bill argue that regulation would help restore public confidence in religious institutions and prevent abuse. They insist that the aim is not to interfere with worship but to ensure transparency, especially in leadership and finances.
However, critics fear the proposed structures could give the government excessive power over churches and mosques. They worry that future administrations could misuse the law to silence religious voices or influence doctrine.
0 Comments