Ugandan bill to establish Sharia courts sparks urgent religious freedom concerns 

  • Proposed bill would subject all Ugandans, including Christians and other non-Muslims to Islamic personal law, in addition to preventing conversion from Islam, posing grave threats to religious freedom.  
  • International religious freedom advocates call on Uganda’s parliament to halt passage of the bill, citing severe violations of human rights, including grave implications for women and girls. 

KAMPALA (7 APRIL)—A bill in Uganda that would establish a nationwide system of Sharia courts—known in Uganda as “Qadhis courts”—is sparking urgent international concerns over freedom of religion, as lawmakers push to fast-track its passage before Parliament dissolves on 24 April 2026.  

The Qadhis Courts Bill, formally published in Uganda’s Gazette at the end of February, would radically change the Ugandan court system. Under the bill, a parallel system of Sharia courts would have mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction over personal law matters such as marriage, divorce, custody, and inheritance for all Muslim marriages, as well as drawing in Christians and other non-Muslims in some circumstances. The bill is expected to be formally introduced and moved into committee imminently, with supporters pushing for its passage before 24 April 2026. 

The bill raises serious concerns that some Ugandans will be forced to adjudicate cases in a court system that does not recognize their faith or legal rights. 

“Uganda’s proposed Sharia courts bill would subject Christians and other non-Muslims to Islamic law, while undermining fundamental rights—especially for women, children, and religious converts.”

- Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International

“Uganda’s proposed Sharia courts bill would subject Christians and other non-Muslims to Islamic law, while undermining fundamental rights—especially for women, children, and religious converts,” said Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International.  

“The Ugandan Qadhis Courts Bill should not proceed within the Parliament, and it is imperative that both international and Ugandan actors oppose it. The proposed bill’s passage would represent a dangerous expansion of Sharia law into Sub-Saharan Africa at a time when Christian persecution is growing.”

Restrictions on Conversion and Other Violations

Because the proposed Qadhis courts would apply Sharia law, which does not recognize conversion from Islam to another religion, Muslim individuals who seek to convert into Christianity or other religions would likely be prevented from doing so. 

“The right to choose and change your religion is firmly recognized in international law. Uganda would be in clear violation of international law should Sharia courts be established across the country given the severely problematic implications for religious conversion,” stated Zorzi. 

Further, the mandatory and exclusive nature of the Qadhis courts’ jurisdiction proposed by the bill would eliminate the ability of a Christian or other non-Muslim to seek justice in the civil court system when there is a family, custody, or inheritance dispute involving a Muslim who pursues a lawsuit within the Qadhis court system.  

Although the proposed bill allows decisions of the Qadhis courts to be appealed to the High Court of Uganda, it requires any such appeal to be heard by a Muslim judge and four Muslim scholars, with no further appeals available. 

Implications for Women and Girls

The mandatory application of Sharia law would legally disadvantage Christian women and girls. The experience of Nigeria highlights this issue. Despite Nigerian law mandating 18 years as the minimum age for marriage, many Sharia courts permit and recognize underage marriage. This has led to the kidnapping, forced conversions, and involuntary marriages of minor Christian girls in Nigeria. The proposed Ugandan Qadhis Courts Bill does not have any provisions addressing such conflicts of law, introducing immense uncertainty and few checks on the Qadhis courts.  

Additionally, under Sharia law, women do not have the same rights under the law as men. This different treatment impacts ultimate decisions concerning divorce and child custody, as well as the weight of a woman’s testimony in court.  

Bill Must Be Rejected to Protect Religious Freedom in Uganda

If the bill is passed, Uganda would not be the first African nation to have Sharia courts, however, the system proposed under Uganda’s Qadhis Courts Bill offers many less protections than similar systems. For instance, the Kenyan Sharia “Kadhis’” courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over non-Muslims, and the Kadhis’ courts are voluntary even for Muslims. Additionally, unlike Uganda’s proposed bill, decisions of Kenya’s Kadhis’ courts are appealable to the secular High Courts, with no special provisions about the High Court’s composition. The Kenyan Kadhis’ courts are also subject to non-discrimination rules for witnesses, to correct for Sharia law’s unequal treatment of the testimony of women and non-Muslims.  

“We are very concerned at the Qadhis Courts Bill, which will require Christians and other non-Muslims to appear before Sharia courts, and formally introduces religious law into our national law,” said Arthur Ayorekire, the Vice President of the Uganda Christian Lawyers’ Fraternity. “We ask all Ugandans to speak out against the passage of the Qadhis Courts Bill. The bill is not necessary and will only lead to legal uncertainty, tensions between religious groups, and potentially will allow extremism to grab a hold in Uganda.“ 

The Uganda Qadhis Courts Bill, as proposed, would create a legal paradigm shift for Uganda and for Africa. The shift markedly increases the risk of religious freedom violations. 

ADF International urges Uganda’s parliamentarians to reject the proposed Qadhis Courts Bill and instead focus legislative efforts on protections that uphold freedom of religion and equal treatment under the law. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Police interrogate Christian pastor arrested for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching, in ongoing criminal investigation

  • Avon and Somerset Police ask Pastor Dia Moodley why he preached in area where he knew Muslims would be present, referring to Bristol city centre
  • Pastor Moodley has not street preached so far during four-month criminal investigation due to risk of further arrest, meaning he has missed both Christmas and run-up to Easter
  • He will street preach today for the first time since his arrest, as he feels it is his Christian duty to do so on day before Easter Sunday

BRISTOL (4 April 2026) – Police interrogated a Bristol-based pastor who was arrested for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while peacefully street preaching, as part of an ongoing four-month criminal investigation.

Pastor Dia Moodley, who was arrested last November for his Christian speech in Broadmead, Bristol, did not street preach over Christmas and, before today, has refrained from doing so in the run-up to Easter, due to the risk of further arrest.

Today, he will street preach for the first time since the arrest, as he feels it is his Christian duty to do so on the day before Easter.

The pastor’s legal defence is supported by ADF International. Earlier this month, the pastor attended a voluntary interview under caution due to the risk of arrest if he did not attend.

During the interview, Avon and Somerset Police officers asked Pastor Moodley questions, which indicated ideological bias and a failure to understand basic Christian beliefs.

For example, according to Pastor Moodley, the police asked why the pastor preached in an area where he knew Muslims would be present, suggesting there is no right to free speech in such areas. In reality, Pastor Moodley was preaching to all people present in the city centre of Bristol.

Also according to the pastor, most of the police questions focused on his comments on transgender ideology and police asked whether he should criticise the ideology as a Christian.

Pastor Moodley was arrested on November 22, 2025 on suspicion of committing a “religiously aggravated” public order offence and “inciting religious hatred” under the Public Order Act 1986, despite the fact that he had merely shared his views in the public square. Read more about the incident here.

This is the second time Avon and Somerset Police have arrested the pastor for his peaceful speech.

In March 2024, he was arrested for the same reason—commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching. The police investigation was later dropped.

Pastor Moodley said: “My experience as a Christian pastor, including the police questioning why I preached in an area where I supposedly knew Muslims would be present, undoubtedly shows there is a real risk of authorities allowing Christianity to be pushed out of public spaces in the UK in favour of allowing Islam or other beliefs to dominate.

“I did not ‘target’ anyone with my speech. I merely preached the Gospel to all people out of love for God and my neighbour. For the police to suggest I cannot do this in areas where Muslims are present sets a very dangerous precedent for free speech.

“Avon and Somerset police have subjected me to an arrest, eight hours in a police cell and a four-month long ongoing criminal investigation for peacefully expressing my views in the public square.

“During an interview under caution, which I only attended because of the risk of further arrest if I did not, the police’s line of questioning showed a clear two-tier bias in favour of Muslim and progressive beliefs, and against my Christian speech.

“The process truly has become the punishment for me. This investigation has effectively prevented me from publicly preaching over Christmas and in the run-up to Easter so far [before today] because of the uncertainty over whether the police consider my entirely lawful speech to be a crime because it offends Muslims and others.

“I consider public preaching to be an essential part of my worship, which the police have de facto inhibited, due to their investigation. There are no Islamic or progressive blasphemy laws in this country, and yet time and time again the police have censored me as if there are. The police should drop this investigation and refrain from censoring me again in the future.”

Pastor Moodley told The Telegraph: “I’ve been arrested for something which is absolutely ludicrous. I did nothing [wrong], but here I am on Saturday going out again to preach during Easter time.

“There’s a fear in my heart and a fear in my congregation that I could be arrested on Sunday morning.”

Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International Jeremiah Igunnubole commented: “The police’s suggestion, in their questioning of Pastor Dia, that the right to free speech does not extend to public spaces where Muslims are present is totally antithetical to the tradition of liberty in Great Britain and the equality of all people under the law.

“Bristol city centre is not a Muslim area or a progressive area in which those worldviews cannot be criticised. Every area in Britain is subject to the rule of law, which includes the protection of the right to freedom of speech. Permitting one group to have a veto over another undermines the principle of equality under the law and reintroduces blasphemy laws through the backdoor.

“DPP v. Coskun showed clearly that there is no blasphemy law in this country. The mere fact that others are offended by expression does not make that expression a crime. Pastor Dia’s fight against censorship and two-tier policing in this case is a battle for the free speech rights of all people in this country.”

With the support of ADF International, Pastor Moodley is considering legal action against the police for the violation of his free speech rights.

Police interrogation

On 10 March, Pastor Moodley attended an interview under caution at an Avon and Somerset Police station. An interview under caution is formal questioning by the police, the answers to which can be used in criminal proceedings.

The pastor read a statement, which referenced an earlier acknowledgement from the police that his public preaching is lawful and that any attempt to restrict it would be disproportionate.

Officers appeared to accept the legality of his conduct, but, according to the pastor, went on to question whether it was appropriate for a Christian to express criticism of transgender ideology and asked why the pastor would go and preach in an area where he knew a certain group of people would be—referring to Muslims.

Past police censorship

After Pastor Moodley’s first arrest in March 2024, the police also unlawfully instructed that his signs, which he used while street preaching, be destroyed. The police have failed to even acknowledge his formal request for compensation for the signs.  

Previously, police tried to censor Pastor Moodley from commenting on any religion besides Christianity while street preaching. Avon and Somerset Police dropped these restrictions and admitted they were “disproportionate” after Pastor Moodley launched a legal challenge with the support of ADF International.  

In March 2025, the pastor was twice threatened with arrest for “breaching the peace”, after preaching about the differences between Christianity and Islam while holding a Quran.  

He was the victim of assault on that occasion by Muslim bystanders and one man even threatened to stab the pastor. The police have not charged any of the individuals who assaulted him. 

The pastor met with the US State Department prior to that incident in March, at a meeting facilitated by ADF International, and spoke about his experience as a victim of censorship in the UK.

Read more about Avon and Somerset’s censorship of Pastor Moodley here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Pastor Dia Moodley, Pastor Moodley being arrested in November 2025

Nepalese clinic accused of coercing girls into egg harvesting, exposing exploitation in the fertility industry

  • Young girls in Nepal reportedly have been subjected to coercive egg retrieval procedures, exposing them to significant health risks, for use in assisted reproductive services.
  • ADF International supports legal action calling for intervention from the Supreme Court of Nepal; final hearing scheduled for 30 March.

KATHMANDU (27 March 2026) — Young girls in Nepal reportedly have been subjected to coercive egg retrieval procedures in which their ova were harvested for use in fertility treatments, raising urgent human rights concerns. In August, the Supreme Court of Nepal was petitioned regarding the case of two girls and is expected to hold its final hearing on 30 March.

Petitioners, with the legal support of ADF International, have called on the Court to take immediate steps to protect vulnerable minors from fertility-related exploitation.

The petition, currently pending before Nepal’s highest court, states that the minors, both aged 17, were isolated from parental oversight, subjected to physical manipulation of their reproductive systems, deprived of food, rendered unconscious, and exposed to significant short and long-term health risks without a meaningful understanding of what was being done to their bodies or why.

The girls were transported, over a period of approximately ten consecutive days, to the Hope and Fertility Diagnostic Private Clinic in Kathmandu. Although no specific information is available on how the harvested eggs were to be used, the clear intention was to use them in assisted reproductive services.

Ova donation is often commercialized, with intended parents paying for eggs, and concerns have been widely raised about the heightened risk of exploitation in parts of the developing world where economic vulnerability can be leveraged.

Following the procedure, an individual associated with the harvesting clinic transferred NPR 10,000 (approximately 69 USD) to the bank account of a third party linked to one of the victims. The victims reportedly experienced excessive bleeding, loss of appetite, and psychological distress, leading their parents to file complaints with Nepal’s Human Trafficking Bureau and Criminal Investigation Bureau.

“What has happened to these Nepalese girls exposes the dark side of the fertility industry, especially in the developing world. The exploitation of minors through invasive egg retrieval procedures is deeply disturbing. The girls could never have given meaningful consent, and the apparent targeting, coercion, and medical abuse described in this case demand urgent scrutiny,” said Tehmina Arora, Director of Advocacy for Asia at ADF International.

“The Supreme Court now has a critical opportunity to recognise the gravity of these abuses and ensure that Nepal puts in place a clear and stringent legal framework to prohibit coercive reproductive procedures, sending a clear message that the exploitation of vulnerable girls will not be tolerated. The fertility industry must not be allowed to operate in violation of basic human rights”.

Previously, the Office of the Attorney General declined to initiate criminal proceedings, citing the absence of an explicit statutory prohibition for the practice of minor egg harvesting. The Attorney General further justified the decision not to prosecute by relying on the clinic’s IVF authorization and licensing validity, in addition to the view that the Nepalese Children’s Act does not explicitly categorize the alleged acts as violence or sexual abuse. The Attorney General also cited a lack of evidence that the girls were brought in against their will, even though minors cannot give meaningful consent to such procedures.

The Supreme Court has been petitioned to challenge both the decision of the Attorney General and the subsequent inadequate regulatory measures (the Standards for the Operation of Infertility Management Services) introduced by the government.

The petitioners have asked the Court to recognize these procedures as crimes against children, amounting to child trafficking, sexual violence, and reproductive exploitation. They seek urgent judicial intervention on the grounds that the alleged egg harvesting was carried out through inducement and deception of the minor girls.

Background

According to the petition before the Supreme Court, both girls were reportedly identified through advertisements on social media and then approached and influenced by agents who transported them to the clinic, where they were subjected to invasive hormonal stimulation and ova extraction.

The petition details that the medical practitioners closely monitored the girls’ menstrual cycles, conducted ultrasound examinations, follicle counts, hormonal testing, daily injections, and repeatedly gave the impression that the extraction was a simple procedure.

At no stage were the minors provided with accurate or age-appropriate information regarding the nature, purpose, risks, or potential consequences of the procedures, in violation of the  Medical Council Code of Ethics of Nepal, which states that informed consent is a prerequisite for any medical intervention, and, for minors, the consent of a parent or legal guardian is mandatory. The procedures were carried out without the girls’ parents’ prior knowledge, and the girls’ and their parents’ identities were altered, and their ages were misrepresented in official documentation.

The first petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Nepal on August 18, 2025. It is supported by two additional petitions. The Court has been asked to assess these abuses in light of the Constitution of Nepal, the country’s criminal laws, and the Children’s Act, in addition to the principle of the best interests of the child.

“This case reflects the changing dynamics of human trafficking, where vulnerable young girls are exploited through reproductive abuse and treated as commodities for profit. We have urged the Court to recognize such acts as trafficking and reproductive exploitation. The interim ban is an important step, but justice will only be served when every perpetrator is held accountable, and every victim’s dignity is restored,” stated Dhruba Bhandari, advocate for the petitioners and allied lawyer of ADF International.

The Court has issued an interim stay on all further egg extraction processes for minors pending further orders.

WIN: Court dismisses charges against Brazilian veterinary student facing 10 years in prison for “transphobic” social media posts  

  • Brazilian Federal Regional Court unanimously clears Isadora Borges of all charges of “transphobia.”

  • ADF International provides legal support to Borges and other similar cases as Brazil’s censorship crisis escalates.

BRASÍLIA (13 March 2026) — Yesterday, a Brazilian Federal Regional Court ruled in favor of Isadora Borges, a veterinary student charged with “transphobia” for her social media posts. Under these charges, Borges faced a potential prison sentence of four to 10 years for content posted to X (then Twitter) in 2020.

The Federal Regional Court of the 5th Circuit unanimously decided to dismiss all charges and close the case. In its reasoning, the Court stated that Borges’ X comments did not contain any attack, threat, or hostility towards individuals who identify as “transgender,” nor did they incite violence, lacking the intentional element required in criminal law to sustain a conviction for “transphobia”.

“The court’s decision brings me great relief and hope that free speech will be protected in Brazil,” said Borges. “The truth matters. Stating biological facts in a post should never result in prison time. All Brazilians deserve to speak freely and stand for what they believe in, even if their views differ from those in power.”

“The truth matters. Stating biological facts in a post should never result in prison time. All Brazilians deserve to speak freely and stand for what they believe in, even if their views differ from those in power."

- Isadora Borges

With this decision, the Court sets an important legal precedent that opinions, such as those shared by Borges, are not grounds for criminal charges for “transphobia”.  

This is the first time that a federal court in Brazil has been called upon to decide on the merits of the criminalization of speech based on a “transphobia” accusation.  

“We commend the court for its decision in Isadora’s favor. This is a promising win for freedom of speech in Brazil, but this never should have happened in the first place. Even when charges are dismissed, the effect of this kind of censorial overreach is to chill speech across the entire country as people watch what they say for legitimate fear of criminal prosecution,” said Julio Pohl, legal counsel at ADF International.  

“Censorship cases similar to Isadora’s are ongoing and continuing to emerge in Brazil. We must continue to push back against the rampant censorship we have seen in the country, until no Brazilian fears being punished for peaceful expression.” 

Background

In November 2020, Borges made two posts on X (then Twitter), peacefully expressing her views on gender ideology. One comment stated that “transgender” women “were obviously born male.” Another stated: “A person who identifies as transgender retains their birth DNA. No surgery, synthetic hormone, or clothing change will change this fact…”

Her comments quickly gained attention online, and prompted Erika Hilton, a self-described “transgender” politician, to report Borges for “transphobia” to the federal police. Hilton was recently elected as president of Brazil’s Women’s Rights Defense Commission (a congressional committee), an act that further exemplifies the spread of gender ideology with a male assuming a key role intended for a woman.

In September 2025, Borges was notified of the criminal charges brought against her. She was accused of two counts of “transphobia,” with each count carrying a punishment of two to five years in prison.

At a hearing in February 2026, the judge indicated that the comments appeared to reflect personal opinions rather than discriminatory intent and granted the defence five days to submit written conclusions, allowing for further consideration of the legal and factual issues before any decision was made.

In a parallel process, Borges’ legal team filed a habeas corpus defense before the Federal Regional Court of the 5th Circuit, asking the court to review whether the prosecution and the decision of the lower court judge could proceed. With yesterday’s judgment by the Regional Court, the lower court case is rendered moot.

ADF International provided legal support to Borges in defense of her fundamental right to freedom of expression and that of all Brazilians.

Growing Pattern of Censorship in Brazil

Since a 2019 ruling by Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal equated “homophobia” and “transphobia” with the crime of racism, without legislation passed by Congress, individuals across Brazil increasingly have faced criminal investigations and prosecutions for peaceful expression.  

In 2025, social media influencer Isabella Cepa faced criminal investigations for her online post about gender ideology. Similarly, Nine Borges (not related to Isadora Borges) is under criminal investigation for “transphobia” for content posted to Instagram. 

In another case, Assemblies of God Pastor Douglas Baptista faced criminal charges for authoring a book with a Christian view of sexuality. Charges in his case were dropped, but they remain evidence of the broader, chilling trend of government efforts in Brazil to censor peaceful online expression. 

ADF International also represents five Brazilian legislators (Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles) before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The legislators are challenging violations of their free speech rights before the Commission. They claim violations of their freedom of expression as a result of escalating state censorship, which reached a head with the 2024 X ban in Brazil. Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem since 2019.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Europe’s Top Court Rejects Case of Christian Parents in Sweden Seeking Reunification with Daughters after 3 Years Separation

  • The daughters have been separated from their parents, and each other, since December 2022, absent any evidence of abuse, and despite deteriorating health conditions in foster care and repeated wish to be reunited.

  • European Court of Human Rights deems case inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust legal remedies in Sweden.

STRASBOURG (10 March 2026) – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled a case brought by Christian parents Daniel and Bianca Samson against Sweden as inadmissible. The parents were seeking justice before the court to regain custody of their daughters, claiming a severe violation of their parental rights. The decision of inadmissibility is final and cannot be appealed. ADF International lawyers are now reviewing the decision together with the parents and assessing possible next steps.

The two eldest daughters of the Samson family were taken by the state in December 2022 after the eldest made a false report at school over her parents’ refusal to give her a phone and allow makeup, prompting allegations of “religious extremism,” even though she promptly retracted. The daughters have been separated from their parents, and each other, since December 2022, even though the state found no evidence of abuse. 

“Parents have the primary responsibility and right to raise their children. When the state interferes with family life based on values-based parenting choices or discrimination on the basis of faith, fundamental freedoms are at stake."

- Guillermo A. Morales Sancho, Legal Counsel for ADF International

“We deeply regret the Court’s decision to reject this case, considering that this family has been torn apart for over three years despite a full investigation that cleared Mr. and Mrs. Samson of any abuse and the fact that the Social Services certified their capacity and fitness for parenting after they successfully completed an official training. Families should be free to live according to their convictions without fear of losing their children to the state,” said Guillermo A. Morales Sancho, Legal Counsel for ADF International. 

The European Court of Human Rights deemed the case inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust legal remedies in Sweden, despite the legal team’s assessment that there were no further options for domestic recourse. 

Specifically, the Court indicated that it did not consider there to be an apparent violation of the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights. It further suggested that questions relating to freedom of religion may be raised before national courts, an option the Samsons may now pursue. 

Background 

The couple of Romanian origin, who had been residing in Sweden for close to a decade, claim that Swedish authorities ignored the best interests of their children by refusing to reunite the family. The forced separation continued even after all allegations against the parents were dropped and prosecutors found no evidence of abuse. The case raises serious concerns about delays, overreach, and possible discrimination against Christians in Sweden’s child welfare system. The state has cited the family’s regular attendance at church three times a week to corroborate accusations of “religious extremism,” despite the fact that this simply reflects their religious beliefs and is a protected action under international human rights law. 

The Samsons currently are only allowed one supervised visit per month. This is complicated by the fact that the girls are placed in different foster care homes far away from each other. 

See our case page for more information: https://adfinternational.org/cases/samson-family  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only