The educated atheist will believe unflinchingly in the unquestioned superiority of his theory, with absolutely no evidence to support him except that he has received a modern education. FILE PHOTO | JEFF ANGOTE |
The rights of atheists should be protected under the constitution unless their actions violate the rights of others or are forbidden by law, the High Court has ruled.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that it would be unconstitutional to impose a belief in any person if that person does not endorse as it amounts to theocratic tyranny which the constitution does not support.
The judge ruled that it is made clear in Article 8 of the Constitution which provides that “there shall be no state religion” and Article 32 (4) which states that “a person shall not be compelled to act or engage in any act that is contrary to the person’s belief or religion”.
Justice Mugambi made the decision while dismissing a petition filed by Dr Stephen Ndicho who had sued the Registrar of Societies, Deputy Registrar of Societies, Attorney General and Atheists in Kenya Society.
Dr Ndichu had argued that the registration of Atheists in Kenya Society as a society was an affront to the preamble of the constitution which recognizes the existence of Almighty God.
“Article 20 (2) of the constitution provides that every person shall enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to the greatest possible extent consistent with the nature of the right or fundamental freedom,” ruled Justice Mugambi.
The judge termed the petition by Dr Ndichu as lacking merit and went ahead to dismiss it with each party bearing its own costs.
Dr Ndicho had also argued that the Registrar of Societies, Deputy Registrar of Societies, and Attorney-General had violated the preamble of the constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Section 12 of the Societies Act.
He sought among other orders a declaration that the registration of Atheists in Kenya Society was unconstitutional and that the certificate of registration recognizing the organization was null and void.
According to the petitioner, the freedom to religion was part of democracy that allowed people to choose their religious beliefs and that the protection of religion was one of the hallmarks of the constitution.
He argued that failure to respect various religious beliefs could result in a climate of intolerance and impunity which in turn fosters hatred and violence within the society.
The petitioner also argued that religion is part of Kenya’s culture and a vital aspect.
Dr Ndicho said that atheism denies the reality of God, rejects the value of religion and argues that religion and faith are futile, which position is contrary to the Constitution.
Through lawyer, Richard Ngari, Atheists in Kenya Society had told the court that cancellation of any registration is governed under Section 12 of the Societies Act as read with Section 24 of the Office of the Attorney General Act and Article 9 of the Code of Conduct Act.
Mr Ngari argued that in consideration of the three Acts, the court cannot usurp the Registrar of Societies exclusive mandate.
He also argued that the petitioner had not demonstrated how any breach of the legal process had been conducted in the registration of Atheists in Kenya Society nor abuse of the discretion vested on the Registrar of Societies.
The lawyer also argued that the constitution in its preamble does not provide any specific rights capable of being violated and thus does not form part of substantive law.
On their part, the Registrar of Societies, Deputy Registrar of Societies and Attorney General argued that the registration of Atheists in Kenya Society was lawful as per the Societies Act.
They argued that before registration, all provisions of the law that could bar Atheists in Kenya Society registration were considered and actioned.
They also told the court that an order quashing the de-registration of the organization was issued in another case thus it (Atheists in Kenya Society) was reinstated.
