15/07/2026
Protecting and : Why Administrative Overreach Against and Churches Violates
As professionals, advocates of the respect for the rule of law, and citizens, we must closely monitor the balance between state authority and the protection of fundamental human rights.
Recent directives from the Ministry of Territorial Administration, followed by the enforcement of church closures by various Prefects (Senior Divisional Officers) and Sub-Prefects (Divisional Officers), have sparked intense debate across Cameroon.
Under the guise of curbing "noise pollution" and preventing the "propagation of destructive indoctrination," administrative authorities are systematically closing Pentecostal places of worship.
While maintaining public order and managing urban noise are legitimate municipal concerns and functions, the unilateral closure of houses of worship bypasses judicial authority and directly infringes upon the foundational liberties of Cameroonians.
To understand why these actions cross a legal red line, we must look at both constitutional freedoms and the specific protections under Cameroon's Penal Code.
The Constitutional and International Shield: Universal Freedoms
Any administrative action restricting religious activities must respect the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon, which affirms our attachment to fundamental human rights. When administrative authorities shut down a church, they do not just lock a door; they suppress several vital, interrelated freedoms:
》Freedom of Religion, Worship, and Conscience: Every individual has the right to believe, to change their belief, and to practice their faith—individually or in community with others—without state harassment or interference.
》Freedom of Expression and Thought: Preaching and sharing religious messages and teachings, even those that challenge mainstream societal norms, are protected under the umbrella of expressive and intellectual freedoms.
Calling a group's beliefs "destructive indoctrination" without judicial proof of criminal activity is a subjective ideological judgment, not a legal basis for closure.
》Freedom of Association: Citizens have the right to organize themselves into religious associations. Administrative delays or refusals to grant formal recognition (legal status) should not be weaponized as a pretext to shut down peaceful assemblies.
》The Penal Code: Protecting Worship, Not Prosecuting It
The state's executive branch operates under the rule of law or is not above the law. Interestingly, Cameroon's own criminal legislation does not criminalize unauthorized peaceful worship; rather, it criminalizes interference with worship.
● Sections 269 through 272 of the Cameroon Penal Code explicitly outline the legal boundaries surrounding public worship and the protection of religious practices:
● Section 269 (Interference with Religion): This section punishes anyone who, through interference or threats, compels or prevents the practice of any form of religion that does not involve the commission of a criminal offense. By unilaterally halting peaceful services, administrative closures risk violating the very spirit of this protective clause.
● Section 270 & 271 (Protection of Ministers): These sections penalize anyone who publicly insults, strikes, or violently obstructs a minister of religion in the exercise of their ministry.
● Section 272 (Disturbance of Public Worship): This section penalizes anyone who, by disturbance or disorder, obstructs, delays, or interrupts religious worship.
When local authorities arbitrarily deploy security forces to interrupt ongoing services, seize musical equipment without due process, or padlock sanctuaries, their actions stand in direct tension with the protections envisioned by Sections 269 and 272.
》Proportionality and Due Process: A Better Path Forward
No freedom is absolute, so to speak. The state has a role in managing public order and ensuring that the conduct of any public gathering—religious or secular—respects the rights of neighbors and non-participants, in conformity with the law.
However, the legal doctrine of proportionality dictates that the state's response must match the issue.
□ Is noise pollution occurring? The remedy is dialogue, soundproofing mandates (from courts of law or conpetent administrative bodies), or reasonable decibel limits—not the permanent padlocking of a sanctuary.
□ Is there a suspicion of criminal activity? The remedy is a targeted judicial investigation led by the state prosecutor, where individuals are held accountable under due process, rather than the collective punishment of an entire congregation.
Using sweeping administrative decrees or measures to silence an entire religious movement undermines the rule of law. It fosters a climate of fear, violates our treaty obligations, and weakens the civic space.
Let us advocate for a Cameroon where administrative power is exercised with restraint, where the courts remain the arbiters of justice, and where the constitutional right to worship in peace is fiercely defended.
