Churches Must Stay Away from CAB3: Church members are not political extensions of their pastors

By Desmond Nleya
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the growing involvement of churches in the debate around Amendment Bill 3 (CAB3), and even harder to justify it. What should be a purely constitutional and political process is now being dragged into religious spaces, with some church leaders publicly endorsing or opposing the bill as if it carries a spiritual mandate.
It does not.
CAB3 is not a theological issue, it is not a matter of doctrine, and it is certainly not an expression of divine instruction. It is politics and churches should stay away from it as institutions.
While supporters present it as a necessary legal reform to improve governance and refine constitutional structures, critics argue that it is deeply tied to succession politics and elite power consolidation. This is not new in political systems where constitutional amendments often become vehicles for strategic political interests.
But what is new and troubling is the attempt to wrap this political contest in religious legitimacy.
Some churches have gone as far as issuing formal statements or submissions to Parliament endorsing CAB3, claiming to speak on behalf of millions of congregants. This is where the problem becomes serious. No church leader, no matter how prominent, has the authority to convert the political preferences of a leadership circle into the spiritual position of an entire congregation.
Church members are not political extensions of their pastors. They are citizens with independent thought, conscience, and the right to make their own political decisions without being spiritually nudged or indirectly pressured.
Even more concerning is the idea that endorsement of a constitutional amendment could be framed as morally or spiritually correct simply because it comes from a religious institution. That logic is dangerous. It suggests that political legitimacy can be borrowed from spiritual authority, even when the issue at hand has no doctrinal foundation. CAB3 does not deal with salvation, morality, or theology. It deals with governance structures, constitutional interpretation, and political power. These are civic matters, not spiritual ones.
The role of churches in society has always been important. They have historically spoken against injustice, advocated for peace, and provided moral guidance in times of crisis. But there is a clear line between moral commentary and political endorsement. Speaking about corruption, justice, or human rights is part of the church’s prophetic voice. Endorsing a specific constitutional amendment, however, crosses into political advocacy that risks compromising the independence of the church and confusing congregants.
There is also a deeper concern about representation. When a denomination claims to represent millions of believers in support of CAB3, the question must be asked: were those millions consulted, or is this simply the voice of a leadership structure? In many cases, ordinary church members hold diverse and even opposing political views. To bundle them into a single political position under the banner of religion is misleading and undemocratic. It replaces individual conscience with institutional assumption.
At the same time, it must also be said that even churches opposing CAB3 as institutions may be falling into the same trap. Whether in support or opposition, when churches take formal collective positions on a political bill, they risk turning the pulpit into a political platform. The problem is not the content of the position but it is the act of institutional political alignment itself. Churches are not political parties, and they should not function as extensions of state or opposition agendas.
Believers must be free to engage in politics as individuals, not as directed members of a political bloc defined by their church leadership. Faith should inform values, not dictate party positions or constitutional preferences. A Christian may oppose or support CAB3, but that decision must come from personal conviction, not institutional pressure dressed in spiritual language.
Churches should return to their core mission: preaching, teaching, providing pastoral care, and speaking prophetically on moral issues that affect society at large. CAB3 does not fall into that category. It is a technical, constitutional, and political matter being contested in the public square. The more the church attempts to insert itself as a political authority in such debates, the more it risks losing its spiritual credibility and unity.
Politics belongs in Parliament, public debate, and civic institutions. Faith belongs in the church. Mixing the two on issues like CAB3 does not elevate spirituality, it dilutes it.