KIGALI, Rwanda. Rwanda’s campaign to close non-compliant places of worship has become one of the most far-reaching regulatory actions against religious institutions seen on the continent in recent years. In late 2025, reports said the authorities had shut more than 10,000 evangelical churches for failing to meet requirements under a 2018 law that governs how worship centres operate. 
The closures are not being presented by the state as a ban on religion. They are being presented as enforcement. Rwanda’s position is that churches and other faith-based organisations are subject to the same expectations the country applies to schools, businesses, and civil society groups: registration, minimum standards, accountability, and clear leadership structures.
What changed is the scale and urgency of enforcement.
A law with teeth, then a long grace period
Rwanda’s current framework traces back to Law No. 72/2018, which set out a stricter governance and compliance regime for faith-based organisations. In practice, the requirements touch three sensitive areas.
First is public safety and facilities. Regulators have repeatedly cited building-code issues, sanitation gaps, fire-safety concerns, and noise control, particularly among fast-growing, informal prayer houses operating in improvised spaces. 
Second is money and governance. Reporting on the 2018 framework describes rules around financial disclosures and the handling of donations, including requirements that contributions flow through registered accounts and that organisations document how their activities align with national standards.
Third is leadership qualification. While public conversation often simplifies this to “pastors must have theology degrees,” the regulatory language, as described in civil society submissions, focuses on formal accountability roles such as legal representatives and senior leadership structures. These roles are expected to present recognised religious studies qualifications or equivalent certification, alongside other documentation.
The policy also came with time to comply. Multiple reports note a multi-year grace period that ran through September 2023 before enforcement intensified.
Why the closures accelerated
The closures are best understood as the peak of an inspection-driven enforcement model that has been building since 2018, not a one-off action.
In 2024, the Rwanda Governance Board carried out large-scale inspections of thousands of prayer houses and closed a major share for non-compliance. One account says about 14,000 prayer houses were inspected in a single month and roughly 70 percent were shut for failing various standards, with reopening possible after fixes and re-inspection.
By December 2025, the story had expanded again, with international reporting describing closures above 10,000 evangelical churches, tied back to the same legal and compliance framework.
The state’s stated reasons
Rwanda’s official rationale, across multiple reports, centres on four points.
One, public safety. The government argues that places of worship should not operate in unsafe buildings, poorly ventilated rooms, or spaces without basic sanitation, crowd control, and emergency safeguards.
Two, consumer protection. Regulators and commentary supportive of the policy have pointed to fraud, coercive fundraising, and manipulation of vulnerable worshippers as a justification for stronger oversight.
Three, professionalising religious leadership. Rwanda has leaned into the argument that formal training and identifiable accountability structures reduce the risk of extremist teaching, misinformation, and exploitation, and make leaders answerable when violations occur.
Four, state stability and “national values.” Some reporting notes that the law requires alignment statements and structured operating plans, and also reflects Rwanda’s wider governance culture, which prefers strong regulation of institutions with mass social influence.
Why critics say it is a rights issue
Opponents do not usually dispute the legitimacy of health and safety regulation in principle. The criticism is about proportionality and impact.
Rights-focused submissions argue that the framework creates unusually heavy barriers for faith groups, especially smaller congregations, and that closure is being used as a blunt enforcement tool rather than progressive compliance notices and realistic timelines.
There is also concern about unequal capacity. Large, well-funded denominations can renovate buildings, hire compliance staff, and train leadership. Small, rural, or informal churches often cannot. When enforcement is aggressive, the result is consolidation of worship into fewer, bigger institutions, whether or not that was the stated goal.
So what is behind the crackdown
At its core, Rwanda’s crackdown is driven by a deliberate state choice: to regulate worship spaces like a tightly governed public service sector, with licensing, inspection, professional credentials, and financial traceability as the baseline.
Supporters see it as overdue order, public protection, and accountability. Critics see it as a compliance regime so demanding that it risks turning regulation into control, especially for smaller faith communities.
