“We can only become a better people if religion could be allowed to influence the laws that govern our daily lives, starting with the Constitution of any country”

These words, along with many similar comments, were made by South Africa’s Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogeng last month at a Stellenbosch University conference entitled “Law and Religion in Africa: The Quest for the Common Good in Pluralistic Societies” have raised many eyebrows.

Many critics see in the comments an attempt by the Chief Justice an attempt to push his brand of moralistic Pentacostal Christianity on a country with tremendous religious diversity.

A significant portion of the uproar stems from a previously held notion of the Chief Justice as an out-of-touch ultra-conservative that favors morality and religion over the rule of law and the constitution.

Richard Poplak, a frequent critic of Mogoeng’s who has written extensively on the Chief Justice’s jurisprudence and personal life, was quick to point out in the Daily Maverick how well the Stellenbosch comments fit in the general theme.

“When Mogoeng spoke at Stellenbosch, no one who had followed his remarkable career could claim to be surprised. But there was something disturbing about it all, mostly because the Constitution’s first line of defence made it clear that he had no great admiration for the Constitution in its current iteration. It’s sort of like a docent at the Louvre wielding a set of crayons, while explaining to visitors why the Mona Lisa needs a facelift,” Poplak was quoted saying.

Mogoeng has since worked to clarify his controversial comments.

When asked about the comments, News24 reported Mogoeng ensured reporters he takes his oath very seriously and would never give precedence to his Christianity over South Africa’s foundational legal document.

He further stated that when he referred to religion he was talking about all religions, not simply Christianity and merely used examples from the Christian faith because it was a religious tradition he is personally familiar with.

Mogoeng’s colleague on the Constitutional Court, Justice Edwin Cameron, has also since expressed his support for the Chief Justice.

According to The Independent Online, in a speech at Kwa-Zulu Natal Cameron accused the Chief Justice’s critics of abusing the speech, stating that Mogoeng had committed himself to serving a multi-religious South Africa.

This clarification and the support of his colleague has done little to persuade critics that the Chief Justice will not replace his religious morality for the wisdom of the constitution.

Poplak, again writing at the Daily Maverick, explained after the Chief Justice’s clarification that the comments were important because “…while there are literally hundreds of examples of Mogoeng’s conservatism in his many years as a judge before he hit the [Constitutional Court], there are zero examples of religious zealotry in his recent judgments…Until now…it does not, should not, and cannot matter what religious shenanigans the Chief Justice practices in his spare time. Unless, of course, the Chief Justice suggests that it matters. Which, last week, he did.”

This accusation is particularly salient in a country as religiously diverse as South Africa.

Among the country’s nearly 50 million people exist significant numbers of several dioceses of Protestant Christians, Catholics, Muslims and many others. Additionally, more than 15 percent of the population report that they have no religion.

The importance placed on this religious pluralism is evident in the country’s constitution, not only containing a provision guaranteeing the freedom of religion, but also protecting religious communities, expressly allowing for legislation prohibiting hate speech against religion and making these freedoms non-derogable, ensuring that even in a state emergency the freedom of religion cannot be restricted.

South African activist Dr. Dale T. Mckinley wrote at the South African Civil Society Information Service, in response to the Chief Justice’s words that “In a democracy worthy of the name, no specific belief, conscience, thought, opinion or religion has special legal or societal status.”

This comment describes the fear in such a religiously diverse country provoked by such statements, when made by the man in charge of the institution tasked with interpreting the country’s religiously-blind constitution.

While the Chief Justice would later assure that he was referring to all religions and would never attempt to push his personal beliefs on the populace, the collective view of him as an ultra-conservative and ultra-religious jurist feeds his critics.

Only time will tell if Mogoeng’s beliefs do make it into his decisions at the Constitutional Court level, but for the time being such statements should worry not only constitutional scholars and analysts, but also ordinary individuals concerned with the very tenets of freedom of, or freedom from, religion.

Andrew Friedman is a human rights attorney and consultant who works and writes on legal reform and constitutional law with an emphasis on Africa. He can be reached via email at afriedm2@gmail.com or via twitter @AndrewBFriedman.