Justice After Tragedy: Can Punishment Alone Protect Religious Freedom?

A Nigerian court has sentenced four men to death for their involvement in the 2022 attack on a Catholic church in Ondo State, where dozens of worshippers were killed during a Pentecost service.

The sentencing marks a significant moment in a case that shocked Nigeria and drew international condemnation. For many families affected by the attack, the verdict may provide a sense that justice has finally been delivered.

Yet the wider significance of the case extends beyond the convictions themselves.

The real question is whether justice delivered after a tragedy can ever be enough to protect one of humanity's most fundamental rights: the freedom to worship without fear.

Freedom of Religion: A Universal Right

Freedom of religion is recognised as a fundamental human right under international law. It protects not only the right to hold religious beliefs but also the right to manifest those beliefs through worship, practice, and participation in religious communities.

In democratic societies, places of worship are often viewed as sanctuaries. They are spaces where individuals should be able to gather peacefully without fear of violence or intimidation.

When an attack targets a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or any other place of worship, the impact extends far beyond the immediate victims. Such attacks strike at the principle that individuals should be free to practise their faith openly and safely.

The Ondo church attack serves as a reminder that rights written on paper do not always translate into protection in practice.

The Difference Between Rights and Reality

Human rights law often focuses on what governments should do. Constitutions, legislation, and international treaties establish legal protections designed to safeguard individual freedoms.

However, rights are meaningful only if they can be exercised in reality.

A government may formally recognise freedom of religion, but if individuals fear attending places of worship because of violence, the practical value of that right becomes diminished.

This highlights one of the most difficult challenges in human rights protection.

Governments cannot always prevent every act of violence. However, they do have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect citizens from foreseeable threats and to respond effectively when attacks occur.

The question therefore becomes not simply whether rights exist, but whether institutions are capable of protecting them.

Is Punishment Enough?

The sentencing of the four men demonstrates that accountability remains an important component of justice.

Societies that fail to prosecute those responsible for acts of violence risk encouraging impunity and undermining public confidence in the rule of law.

However, criminal convictions are inherently retrospective.

They address what has already happened.

They cannot restore lives lost, erase trauma, or guarantee that future attacks will not occur.

This creates an uncomfortable reality.

While accountability is necessary, it is rarely sufficient on its own.

Preventing future violence often requires broader measures, including intelligence gathering, community engagement, security improvements, and efforts to address the conditions that allow extremist violence to flourish.

A Global Challenge

Although this case occurred in Nigeria, the underlying issues are not unique to one country.

Around the world, religious communities continue to face threats ranging from discrimination and intimidation to acts of terrorism and targeted violence.

Whether the victims are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, or members of other faiths, attacks on places of worship raise the same fundamental question:

Can people practise their beliefs freely and safely?

The answer depends not only upon legal protections but also upon the willingness and ability of states to uphold them.

What Happens Next?

The convictions will likely be viewed as an important step towards accountability.

However, the broader challenge remains.

Governments, religious communities, and civil society organisations must continue addressing the conditions that enable such attacks to occur.

For human rights advocates, the case also serves as a reminder that protecting rights requires more than legislation and court judgments.

It requires institutions capable of making those rights meaningful in everyday life.

My View

The sentencing of those responsible for the Ondo church attack is undoubtedly significant. Accountability matters. Justice matters.

However, the true measure of a society's commitment to religious freedom is not how it responds after an attack, but how effectively it prevents attacks from occurring in the first place.

Human rights are often discussed as legal concepts, but their real importance lies in their practical application.

A person should not have to choose between practising their faith and protecting their safety.

The events in Ondo remind us that rights do not protect themselves. They require institutions, vigilance, and a continuing commitment to ensuring that freedom exists not only in law, but in reality.