News

Fiona Bruce – extract from speech on Sustainable Development Goals, House of Commons, 10 September 2015

“Let me turn to the importance of leaving no one behind. Earlier, I read out a list of causes for which people can be left behind, whether due to gender, geography or those in minority groups such as the Dalits. This is a paradigm shift: leave no one behind regardless of their ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race or other status. That is admirable.

However, I believe that one word and cause of inequality is missing from that group: belief. No one should be left behind because of what they believe, whether they have any faith or none. Ministers know that I have raised on a number of occasions my concern that an underlying cause of poverty is a lack of freedom of belief, freedom of thought or the freedom of speech that can follow, resulting in conflict, violence, loss of opportunities, homelessness, displacement and more. If we are determined to tackle the underlying causes of poverty, we cannot leave that behind. Fostering religious freedom should be seen as a priority not only for tackling conflict once it has happened, but to prevent it before it takes place and to promote stability.

As Brian Grim argues in his book, “The Price of Freedom Denied”, religious freedom fosters respect towards others with a different belief in the same society, therefore reducing tensions. I would go further than that, because I think it will contribute to the achievement of our SDGs. For example, goal 5 promotes the rights of girls and women. So much harassment of women is linked to religious discrimination against women—the respected report by the Pew Research Centre states that such discrimination takes place in 32% of countries. Goal 8 is about economic welfare, and employment discrimination as a result of someone being involved in a faith group is rife, as we see in countries such as Iran.

Let me give another example—sustainable development goal 16, the promotion of peace, as well as sustainable development goal 8, economic growth. In countries where freedom of belief is not respected, conflict disrupts economic activity. Foreign and local investors become reluctant to invest, jeopardising sustainable development and economic growth. As businesses corroborate, an opportunity to invest, conduct normal business practice and prevent industries from struggling is weakened. Egypt’s tourism industry, for example, has faced such challenges. By promoting and practising freedom of belief, a path to security and economic well-being can be laid.

I urge Ministers to consider this and to engage faith groups in their civil society review. Is it not time to review the Department’s faith partnership principles? Finally, would DFID consider engaging in the joint learning initiatives on faith and development instituted by some of the major international NGOs working on poverty relief, such as Tearfund, CAFOD and World Vision?”

In an interview with ucanews.com on 9 September, following a 10-day visit to the country, Heiner Bielefeldt, the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said religious extremism is instilling a climate of fear among Bangladesh’s ethnic and religious minorities, including Christians. The politicisation of religion and a rise in intolerance threaten Bangladesh’s long tradition of pluralism and interreligious harmony.

Bielefeldt said authorities are not doing enough to find justice for victims of violence targeting ethnic and religious minorities.

“There are allegations of attack, murder and rape of indigenous people, but they are not often efficiently investigated,” Bielefeldt said. “So religious and ethnic minorities in Bangladesh live in a climate of physical and legal insecurity.”

He cited an example of the 2012 attacks on Buddhist temples in Ramu, in Cox’s Bazar in the country’s southeast. Authorities helped repair places of worship after the violence, Bielefeldt said, yet perpetrators have not been punished.

As part of his visit, Bielefeldt met with government officials, parliamentarians, human rights activists, civil society organizations, indigenous leaders and religious organizations, including members of the Christian community.

Bielefeldt said Christian leaders he met with told him of their fears of a rise in Islamic extremism.

“There are incidents of looting of churches and violence against Christian men and women. Other people might see these just as sporadic incidents, but from minorities’ perspectives, it is seen in a broader context,” Bielefeldt said. “Often, these are not taken seriously. So, the fear is there.”

He also praised Christians for initiating interreligious dialogue programs that seek to bring together representatives from majority and minority religious groups.

Islam dominates in Bangladesh, with Muslims comprising about 90 percent of the country’s 160 million people. Hindus represent about 8 percent, while Christians and Buddhists represent only a small percentage of the population.

“Religious extremism is a global phenomenon,” he said. “It is not only happening in the name of Islam, but also in the name of Buddhism in Myanmar, in the name of Hinduism in India, and also in the name of Christianity in Russia.”

Bielefeldt’s visit to Bangladesh comes amid worrying trends for religious minorities in Bangladesh.

The issue of secularism has recently been in the public spotlight, after the country’s Supreme Court rejected a petition challenging the legality of a constitutional provision recognizing Islam as Bangladesh’s state religion.

Speaking with reporters Bielefeldt said the government has publicly committed to defending the constitutional principle of secularism. But in practice, there are “inconsistencies” in how this is implemented.

He said the influence of extremists has triggered “the politicisation of religion” and contributed to a shrinking space in the country for religious minorities and secularism.

He cited the high-profile murders of several secular bloggers this year.

“The government condemned the recent murders of online activists but did little to protect them,” Bielefeldt said. “Some officials publicly admonished them for expressing critical views on religion, particularly Islam … thereby, sending ambiguous messages to society.”

He also cited a controversial law that calls for punishments for people judged to have published material to deliberately hurt people’s religious feelings.

“This law undoubtedly has a chilling effect on civil society organizations, human rights activists and members of religious minority communities,” he said, adding that the law “contributes to the perception of a shrinking space for frank public discourse”.

While there may be troubling signs for religious freedoms in Bangladesh, Bielefeldt said there are also solutions.

“Extremism rises when there is endemic poverty, unemployment and corruption prevail, and people lose their trust in public institutions,” Bielefeldt told ucanews.com. “If Bangladesh wants to check extremism, it must tackle all these contributing factors.”

© ucanews.com all rights reserved.

Read the Special Rapporteur’s Press Statement in full

Lord Alton has published his report following Evidence-Taking Sessions With Pakistani Christians – September 2015.

The team took evidence from refugees and human rights advocates and also had meetings with UNHCR officials and diplomats in Thailand. “Throughout our meetings with human rights advocates and escapees we heard a number of disturbing accounts of shocking and systematic persecution in Pakistan,” Lord Alton writes.

“The accounts which we heard during our evidence sessions paint a picture of well founded fear and from which asylum represents the only prospect of safety and survival.”

The blog includes a number of stories drawn from the evidence that was presented to them:

“One witness described how his legs had been broken by his brothers after he became a Christian in Pakistan. After he refused to recant they hired two men to kill him. Because his sister gave him shelter they incinerated  her home and she died in the fire. His wife abandoned him and he fled to Bangkok with his 12-year-old, traumatised, son.

He concludes “We note that Indian newspapers recently reported that the Government of India suggested that Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs being persecuted for their religious faith might be given the right to settle in India. Although this is a very sad reflection on the failure of the Government of Pakistan to provide protection against the persecution of its religious minorities, and the complete absence of religious toleration and respect for minorities, an Indian refuge may offer Pakistan’s persecuted citizens some future prospect of safety and security and we hope that UNHCR are exploring this option with the Governments of both countries.”

Read the whole blog

Brian Grim, President of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation, argues that freedom of belief is one of three factors significantly associated with global economic growth, according to a study by researchers at Georgetown University and Brigham Young University.

Mr Grim also recently spoke at a major international conference in Rimini, Italy, which attracts up to 800,000 people from across Italy and the world each summer. The session on economic development as a way to counter violent extremism was held in collaboration with the European Parliament Information Office in Italy and the European Commission Representation in Italy. He focused his comments on the foundation’s Empowerment+ pilot programme with St. Mary’s University in London to counter radicalisation.

In his paper on religious freedom and growth, he emphasises that while the research study does not prove that religious freedom causes economic growth, it does suggest the matter deserves more consideration. Indeed, as the world navigates away from years of poor economic performance, freedom of religion or belief may be an unrecognized asset. For instance, the same study finds a positive relationship between religious freedom and 10 of the 12 pillars of global competitiveness, as measured by the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index.

The paper continues:

Research indicates that when freedom of religion or belief is put to practice, it has the following effects:

• Reduced corruption: Research finds that laws and practices that exclude religion are related to higher levels of corruption. This is borne out by a simple comparison between the Pew Research Center’s 2012 Government Restrictions on Religion Index and the 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index. Nine of the 10 most corrupt countries have high or very high governmental restrictions on religious liberty. This includes North Korea, which Pew does not have enough data to rate but considers one of the most religiously restrictive countries. Religious freedom allows businesspeople to draw on spiritual values and moral teachings as they go about their work; it helps to inform business ethics.

• More peace: When religious freedoms are not respected, the result can be violence and conflict. Normal economic activities become vulnerable to disruption, with local and foreign investment driven away and sustainable development undermined. One need only look at Egypt, where religious regulations and hostilities have adversely affected the tourism industry. More generally, tolerance is a key ingredient in peace and stability, which is particularly important for business because, where stability exists, there is more opportunity to invest and conduct normal and predictable business operations, especially in new and emerging markets. This is the topic of the 2011 Cambridge University Press book The Price of Freedom Denied and a 2014 study by the Institute for Economics and Peace.

• Less harmful regulation: Some religious restrictions can directly affect economic activity, creating legal barriers for import and export industries, such as the halal food market. Proscriptive laws can also stoke region-wide religious hostilities, again disrupting markets. Examples range from discrimination against women in the workplace (over such things as headscarves) to the use of anti-blasphemy laws to attack business rivals, such as recently happened in the media industry.

• Reduced liabilities: Stocks of Abercrombie & Fitch dropped when news broke that the clothing retailer had allegedly refused to hire a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf, potentially a violation of American equal opportunity employment laws. By avoiding religious discrimination in the workplace, businesses can avoid such liabilities.

• More diversity and growth: Freedom of religion can contribute to a rich pluralism that is itself associated with economic growth. For instance, the world’s 12 most religiously diverse countries each outpaced the world’s economic growth between 2008 and 2012, according to recent research. Indeed, the active participation of religious minorities in society often boosts economic innovation, as the history of the Industrial Revolution has shown. In China, during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, religion was outlawed and many people were persecuted for their beliefs. While it is true that China continues to regulate religion more strictly than other countries, current conditions are far freer. This relative opening-up of society has resulted in the spread of religion, such that China is now home to the world’s second-largest religious population after India, according to the latest demographic estimates. A new study in the China Economic Review finds a link between Christianity, adhered to by some 5% of China’s population, and the nation’s economic growth. Furthermore, a study led in part by Professor Ram Cnaan, of the University of Pennsylvania, finds that a wide diversity of religious congregations in a city contributes many millions of dollars to the economy through direct spending and activities ranging from educational and health services to a network of relationships that helps provide jobs and a safety net for those facing hard times.

Arguably, ensuring freedom for religious groups in China and elsewhere is a way to stimulate and sustain growth in the decades ahead. It’s something every country can benefit from.

Religious freedom helps tackle “small-p” poverty through “self reliance” – Case Study

Poverty, some argue, can only be effectively tackled by governments enforcing top-down, big-P Poverty reduction policies and programs. But a host of religious groups haven’t gotten the memo. Innovative faith-based initiatives worldwide are tackling poverty using bottom-up, small-p poverty alleviation approaches that empower individuals to be resourceful, resilient and self-reliant.

Indeed, a central aspect of religious freedom is that it gives faith groups license to innovate and contribute to the wellbeing of individuals, communities and nations. But where religious freedom is curtailed, so are such innovations. For instance, reform-minded Saudi princess Basmah bint Saud argues, religion “should not be a shield behind which we hide from the world but a driving force that inspires us to innovate and contribute to our surroundings.”

In this new instalment of an ongoing series on the connection between religious freedom and sustainable development, Brian Grim describes these small-p initiatives and concludes with a case study of how one faith group – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – is directly targeting and reducing poverty in its congregations worldwide.  More

Parliamentarians from across Southeast Asia have spoken out against the Burmese authorities’ recent decision to prevent current Member of Parliament U Shwe Maung from running for reelection this November.

Calling for the decision to be overturned, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) said this week that the move defies basic logic, sets a dangerous precedent for the continued disenfranchisement of Rohingya, and directly undermines the credibility of upcoming elections.

On Saturday, Shwe Maung, who is also an APHR board member, received word that the local election commission in Maungdaw Township, Rakhine State, had denied his application to run for reelection to the lower house as an independent candidate. Despite his more than four years as a member of parliament and documented evidence to the contrary, the commission claimed that Shwe Maung, who is Rohingya, is not a citizen and that he is therefore ineligible to run for office.

“The election commission’s claims are beyond ridiculous. And what’s more, this decision actively undermines the democratic process,” said APHR Chairperson Charles Santiago, a member of parliament in Malaysia. “The right to stand for election is as fundamental as the right to vote and cannot be denied on the basis of religion or ethnicity.”

Santiago added that the fact that Shwe Maung currently serves as an elected representative alone should confirm his eligibility to run.

“It is clear that the decision to reject his candidacy is nothing more than another attempt by authorities to disenfranchise and persecute Rohingya—part of a broader government-backed campaign to drive them out of the country entirely,” said Santaigo.

Rohingya in Rakhine State are already denied basic rights, including freedom of movement, and regularly suffer from abuses by state authorities.

Following government decisions earlier this year, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have been removed from voter rolls and will likely be unable to cast ballots in the upcoming general election. This comes despite the fact that Rohingya were eligible to vote in previous elections, including in 2010 and 2012.

“This mass disenfranchisement completely undermines the idea that the upcoming vote will be even remotely free and fair,” said Santiago. “The Burmese government can’t claim that elections are at all credible if a million people are prohibited from participating in the process and candidates are prevented from running based on their ethnic background.”

Shwe Maung said he plans to appeal the decision. APHR has called on the Rakhine State Election Commission, as well as the Union Election Commission, to reverse the decision and uphold Shwe Maung’s right to run for reelection.

“We must speak with one regional voice on this issue,” Santiago continued. “At a fundamental level, this decision, along with the broader disenfranchisement of the Rohingya population, represents a grave threat—not only to minority rights, but to the future of democracy in Burma. It must be overturned.”

In April 2015, lawmakers successfully proposed a constitutional amendment that, if approved, would reinstate Christianity as the official state religion. This attempt follows Christian leaders’ fruitless efforts in 2013 to submit a similar petition to lawmakers in the Liberian House and Senate.

Last month the Muslim leader and peace advocate Sheikh Kafumba Konneh died. He was the head of the Muslim Council of Liberia, who railed against global Muslim fundamentalism and helped quell inter-ethnic and religious tensions during Liberia’s 14-year civil war. As a founding member of the Interfaith Committee of Liberia, Konneh participated in peace talks throughout Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone with other faith leaders. After the war ended in 2003, he joined Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, maintaining his reputation as a unifier until his death.

ThinkProgress reported that the passing of the prominent figure came at a time when religious tensions in Liberia are running high. “There’s a possibility that Liberia may soon officially become a Christian state — a change that some citizens say could cause another civil war. That outcome is likely the last thing that Konneh would have wanted to see.”

This week President Sirleaf Johnson described the proposed constitutional change as ‘antithetical” to the peaceful co-existence of Liberians, reports the Liberia News Agency.

She said although Liberia was established on the foundation of Christianity, the founders of the Republic did not put into the Liberian Constitution a declaration of Christianity as the nation’s religion.

The Liberian leader explained that the Constitution has always allowed freedom of religion and worship without seeking to describe or prescribe one religion as the official religion, adding, “To do so now could foment division amongst the citizens based on religious beliefs.”

She stressed that the Article 14 of the Constitution correctly separates religion and state, and provides specifically and unequivocally that the Republic shall establish no religion.

Her communication has been sent to the Liberian Senate for further deliberation.

Today, The Perspective publishes a lengthy article by Josephus M Gray under the heading President Sirleaf’s Rejection to The “Christian State” Proposal: Good or Bad for Liberia?

He states that as one of thousands of Liberians who is against the Christianisation of Liberia, he sees the president’s rejection as a relief from a potential religious crisis from the country, especially between the two most recognised religion institutions in the country – Christianity and Islam.

“Today’s battles between the two popular religions in Liberia, a nation founded by its founding fathers on ‘Christian’s principles,’ are much more turbulent than in the past, and may degenerate further, possibly into bedlam, if amicable solution is not proffer. The well-organised Christian conformists, both leaders and their supporters who are seeking to “baptize” Liberia, are politically stronger, more energized this time, and better determined than ever before in achieving their objective to baptize the nation into Christianity through a referendum for a “Yes” vote.

“Although secularism is proceeding rapidly in the Liberian society, nevertheless religion continues to be an important political phenomenon in the body politics of the nation, for multiple reasons. Some religious groups in Liberia see the move to constitutionalize Christianity as a direct threat to their faith and alienate them, arguing that the move implies their exclusion. They argue further that it is unfair for their religious beliefs.”

He highlights that a new Pew Research analysis finds that 30 of the world’s countries (15%) belong to a unique group of nations that call for their heads of state to have a particular religious affiliation. From monarchies to republics, candidates in these countries must belong to a specific religious group. More than half of the countries with religion-related restrictions on their heads of state (17) maintain that the office must be held by a Muslim. More

Benedict Rogers and Andrew Copson are joint authors of a blog published by the Huffington Post:

“Freedom of thought, conscience or religion, as set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the most basic right of all – the right to choose what to believe, to practice your beliefs, to share your beliefs with others in a non-coercive way, and to change your beliefs. It protects the rights of people of all religions, and the right to have no religion. And it is increasingly under threat throughout the world.”

“Until recently, freedom of religion was wrongly perceived as a right for religious people. There was a sense that if you were not religious, Article 18 was not for you. But this is a profoundly incorrect interpretation. It is in all our interests to speak up for the protection and promotion of this basic right, because when it is denied to one group, all are affected. Where Christians are persecuted, minorities from within Islam – Shi’a or Ahmadiyya, for example – also suffer, as do Baha’is. Where Muslims are the prime victims, as in Burma and among the Uighurs in China, Christians and other minorities suffer alongside them. And in many parts of the world, those who choose to exercise their right to not believe, to reject religion, to declare their agnosticism, atheism or humanism, they face discrimination, arrest, imprisonment, torture or even death.”

Read the whole blog

The Daily Telegraph’s headline was “UK’S £2.7BN IN AID TO COUNTRIES WHERE CHRISTIANS ARE PERSECUTED”

It reported that analysis of official aid statistics showed that four out of five countries listed on a global human rights watch list, charting attacks or official suppression against Christians, received money from the overseas development budget or through other official agencies.

But another website re-reported the story under the headline British Tax Payer Aid Funds Global Christian Persecution.

The Telegraph quoted a DFID spokesman: “British aid is tackling discrimination head on – to suggest otherwise is deeply misleading. DFID is working closely with our charity partners to help create more open and free societies.

“The truth is, stopping aid to these countries is counterproductive.

“It will simply cut support to persecuted men, women and children, and harm the future health, education and welfare of the world’s poorest people.

“No person anywhere in the world should face persecution for their religious beliefs or sexual preferences, and the UK will proudly continue to tackle these injustices at home and abroad.”

Article in full

The Express have also run a similar story More

The BBC reports that a Bangladeshi blogger known for his atheist views has been hacked to death by a gang armed with machetes in the capital Dhaka, police say.

Niloy Neel was heavily involved in the secularist movement as an organiser for the Science and Rationalist Association Bangladesh. He worked for an NGO and recently completed his Master’s degree in Philosophy.He is the fourth secularist blogger to have been killed this year by suspected Islamist militants in Bangladesh.

Imran H Sarkar, head of the Bangladesh Blogger and Activist Network, told the BBC that Mr Neel had been an anti-extremist voice of reason. “He was the voice against fundamentalism and extremism and was even a voice for minority rights – especially women’s rights and the rights of indigenous people,” he said.

BBC World Service South Asia editor Charles Haviland says that, like previous victims, Mr Neel was not only secular but atheist and, like two of the others, he was from a Hindu, not a Muslim, background.

Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the BHA and President of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, has challenged the UK Government to act on the growing crisis in Bangladesh.

He said: “This latest murder demonstrates once again if further proof were needed that the culture of impunity for these Islamist vigilantes in Bangladesh has become firmly entrenched. We are calling on the UK Government to act swiftly to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of religion or belief and free expression to the Government of Bangladesh.

“The UK has a duty of conscience to urge this Commonwealth member, with which we have such strong links, to restore freedom and the rule of law and to protect its humanist bloggers.”

19 August – home in Juba

Morning Star News reports that the Rev. Peter Yein Reith and the Rev. Yat Michael were acquitted of the crimes calling for the death penalty on Aug. 5 but were prevented from boarding a plane out of the country the next day. Sudan’s notorious National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) had ordered the travel ban when they were initially detained – Michael on Dec. 14 and Reith on Jan. 11 – and gave the orders to the airport personnel.

Attorneys for the two pastors have been working for their release since then, but it was not immediately clear why they were released today. Michael and Reith were transported from Juba International Airport to a church in Hai Jebel in Juba, where they attended a thanksgiving service.

5 August 2015 – freed!

World Watch Monitor reported today that Yat Michael and Peter Yen, South Sudanese pastors on trial in Sudan on charges including ‘spying’, have been freed by the Judge of Khartoum North Central Court, Ahmed Ghaboush.

Yat Michael had taken his child to Khartoum for medical treatment when he was arrested on December 14, 2014, after being asked to preach at a local church during his stay. Peter Yen was arrested in January 2015 when he went to enquire about Michael’s whereabouts. The two men were then reported as missing until Sudanese authorities revealed that they were being held in prison for ‘crimes against the state’.

Guilty on some accounts, but freed due to time served
The DPA German news agency reports the judge found Yat Michael guilty of “breach of the peace” (Article 69) and Peter Yen guilty of “managing a criminal or terrorist organisation” (Article 65). But he ordered both released, as they had already served the sentences for these offences by their 8 months in prison.

Experts said there were fears that they would have been convicted of the more serious charges; it was felt the judge was under pressure to balance local expectations on him to uphold the principles of the sharia-governed state, with adherence to international human rights standards.

The families told Radio Tamazuj, an online independent news service broadcast in Sudan and South Sudan, that they were ‘delighted’.

The last time the men were in court was July 23 when their legal team submitted their written closing arguments.
Observers from a number of foreign embassies were present that day. An official from the Sudanese Ministry of Justice told one of the pastors’ lawyers that the extent of outside interest had led the Government to take a very close interest in the case.

Thabith Al Zubir, one of the lawyers defending the pastors, on July 23 had asked the judge to drop the case because the defence had refuted all the accusations levelled against the two men, and because there was no clear evidence against them.

The defence lawyers had also argued that their clients were arrested illegally by the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS).

In addition, the lawyers raised concern over the fact that Yat Michael and Peter Yen were being tried illegally for insulting religion.
They also said that the pastors were illegally detained for a long period of time without trial. “This is illegal and against the bill of rights in Sudan’s constitution”.

Lawyer Al Zubir had called on the court to respect Sudan’s constitution above the powers of the National Intelligence and Security Service to arrest and detain any person for a long period of time without trial.

THE ORIGINAL STORY (May 2015)

Two South Sudanese pastors being held in Khartoum could face the death sentence when their trial is concluded, reports World Watch Monitor.

In February it was reported that Yat Michael and Peter Yen (also named as David Yein Reith in some reports) were held in unknown locations after being arrested during a visit to Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, from their homes in South Sudan.

On 4 May they were charged with a series of offences, two of which – undermining the constitutional system and waging war against the state – carry the possibility of the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Michael was taken into custody on 21 December after preaching that morning at the Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church (SPEC) Khartoum Bahri congregation. After the service several men who identified themselves as officers from the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) demanded that Michael go with them, and took him away without further explanation.

The next day the security forces went to Michael’s temporary home and took some of his clothes and personal belongings. They informed his wife that he was being held in relation to an ongoing investigation but did not reveal any further details, whether he was under arrest or what the charges were.

Michael and his wife had taken their child to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, for medical attention but had been asked to preach at a church during their visit, sources told World Watch Monitor.

Yen was arrested on 11 January after he delivered a letter to the Religious Affairs Office in Khartoum asking about his colleague Michael’s arrest in December. Both men belong to the South Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church.

Their case was postponed until this week due to the availability of a representative of the NISS. The lawyer representing the two men believes the charges against them will be dropped, but the involvement of the NISS may lead to a different outcome. Nahmia Shaloka, a Sudanese lawyer who left the country because of his human rights activity and now lives in the United States, said the NISS legal advisor will try to connect Michael’s speech at the church to the charges filed against them. “For me there is no evidence,” Shaloka said. “So far the whole thing is to give their [the NISS] action legal justification. The NISS claim to have evidence and this will be clear at the hearing on May 19.”

According to Amnesty International, the NISS is an agency that is above the law. Priscilla Nyagoah, a campaigner for Sudan and South Sudan at Amnesty International’s regional office in east Africa, said in a recent blog that the Sudanese parliament amended its constitution in January to extend NISS’ mandate to perform duties currently carried out by the armed forces and law enforcement agencies, adding that the amendment doesn’t require the agency to abide by relevant international, regional and domestic law. “Conferring an intelligence agency such as the NISS with such a mandate, in addition to its already extensive powers of arrest, detention, search and seizure under the National Security Service Act, is particularly alarming,” Nyagoah wrote.

Nyagoah is calling for a human rights-compliant legal framework for the NISS, which would subject its arrest and detention practices to judicial oversight, and ensures that NISS agents perpetrating human-rights violations are held to account. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights recently sent out a message against the impunity of the NISS, by declaring the Republic of Sudan guilty of violating the rights of three human-rights defenders while in NISS detention in November 2008. The decision, published in February this year, requests Sudan to pay adequate compensation to Monim Elgak, Amir Suleiman and Osman Hummeida and to prosecute all those responsible for the illegal incarceration and torture of the three.

At the continuation of their trial on Tuesday, Michael and Yen will stand charged with disclosure and receipt of official information or documents, arousing feelings of discontent among regular forces, breach of public peace, and offences relating to insulting religious beliefs. They also will face charges of undermining the constitutional system, and waging war against the state, which carry the possibility of harsher penalties.

The church in Khartoum that Michael had been preaching at has suffered pressure from government authorities over land rights, resulting in most of the church being destroyed in December last year.

This is not the first time this year that a church building has been demolished by Sudanese authorities. In February and June 2014, churches were destroyed in Omdurman and Khartoum.

While South Sudan has a largely Christian population, Sudan is predominantly Muslim. However, many thousands of Southern Sudanese who fled the long civil war to live in the north are now so rooted there, they choose to remain. There are still churches in the north to meet their needs, although some have come under pressure in recent months.

Sudan’s minister of religion, Shalil Abdullah, has said that the authorities would not issue permits for the construction of new churches.

UPDATES

After the start of the trial of Yat Michael and Peter Yen on 19 May, on 31 May the trial was adjourned until June 15 to give prosecutors more time to try building a case, a defence attorney said.

On 15 June sources said that prosecutors produced no new evidence. Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported that the defence attorneys have also been denied access to the pastors since the transfer to the high-security prison. NISS has assigned them to separate cells to put more psychological pressure on them in the face of the widespread attention their case has garnered from the international community, media and right groups, sources said. The court heard the defence’s presentation as well as the case for the prosecution at today’s hearing, relatives said, but did not issue a ruling. The attorney defending the two pastors said the trial was going well.

On 18 June Middle East Concern reported that the prosecution produced one person who gave testimony, but brought no new evidence against the pastors.

On 25 June the prosecution produced one person who gave testimony, but brought no new evidence against the pastors. The hearing on 2 July saw the judge question Pastor Yat and Pastor Yen, focusing on why they should be involved in Christian ministry in an Islamic country, and decided their case would continue to trial.

On 14 July lawyers presented the case for the defence. There were two witnesses, an IT expert and a retired army general. The pastors have stated that some of the ‘incriminating’ documents allegedly found on their computers are not theirs. The IT expert testified as to how easy it would have been for others to plant the documents on their computers without their knowledge. The retired general testified that the documents used as evidence against the pastors are in the public domain and are not related to military or other state secrets as had been alleged.

The verdict is expected during a hearing on 5 August.

Middle East Concern report that observers from a number of foreign embassies were present at the 14 July hearing. An official from the Sudanese Ministry of Justice told one of the pastors’ lawyers that the extent of outside interest has led the Government to take a very close interest in the case.

In a further development, Middle East Concern report that on 1 July Pastor Hafez of the Evangelical Church in Bahri (where Pastor Yat preached before his arrest) and Mohaned (the lawyer not only for the two pastors but also for the church) were arrested and detained briefly before being released on bail.

The authorities had come to destroy part of the church complex, on the order of government officials. When Pastor Hafez and the lawyer complained that the government employee was attempting to destroy part of the church compound that was not within the government order, they were both arrested for obstructing a public servant in the exercise of his duties. The government employee continued to destroy the part of the compound that was not within the order.

The lawyer was driven to the police station but the pastor was made to walk there in handcuffs – a deliberate attempt to humiliate him. During his detention Pastor Hafez was hit on the side of his head with a gun. After his release he needed to go to hospital for x-rays. It is not yet known when the case against Pastor Hafez and the lawyer will be brought to court.