Overview:

• Recognition and registration are amalgamated rather than ideally differentiated.

• Although “unauthorised religious groups” are allowed to gather publicly and worship, the tone of the legislation seems not to acknowledge that such groups are entitled to engage this activity whether authorised by the state or not.

• Legal registration dependent upon approval from the presidency does not correspond with standards for registration.

• Ongoing violence and extremist activity needs to be combatted in part by greater engagement with the tool of recognition to promote religious education, broader acceptance of religious and belief diversity, and to reaffirm the validity of minorities and NRMs through both legal registration and crucially, existential recognition.

• State definitions of what a religious group constitutes contravenes the Durham principles and equates to unreasonable government involvement in the internal affairs of religious groups.

• The country will be moved to a censorious classification if instances of government violence to maintain its restrictions are reported.

Positive elements:

• Horizontal recognition is in effect.

Recommendations:

• Change of attitude and approach to how religious groups are treated.

• Establish an independent recognition agency to deal with recognition and registration rather than governmental departments.