Shakahola convictions good, but we need to go a step further

Shakahola convictions secured, but questions over state failures and accountability remain. [File, Standard]

The conviction of Paul Mackenzie and his co-accused in the Shakahola case, presided over by Justice Diana Kavedza, marks an epochal moment in our constitutional and criminal jurisprudence. Beyond the immediate question of individual culpability, the judgment invites reflection on religious liberty, the limits of judicial authority and the troubling failures of the institutions entrusted with protecting life. Its significance lies in the constitutional questions it leaves behind.

First, Shakahola represents a grim reminder that constitutional freedoms, however sacred, cannot become sanctuaries for criminality. The right to freedom of religion under Article 32 of the Constitution protects belief, conscience, worship and religious practice. These guarantees are indispensable in a democratic society whose constitutional order embraces pluralism and diversity. At the same time, no constitutional freedom exists in a vacuum. The Constitution protects human dignity, life and liberty alongside religious freedom.