Prime Minister La’auli Schmidt seeks guidance from National Council of Churches regarding the exclusion of faiths not founded on Christian beliefs.
TLDR
Samoan Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Fosi Schmidt has proposed a ban on non-Christian religions. He announced this position regarding “pagan beliefs” on Christmas Eve. The Prime Minister cited the risk of religious extremism and recent violence in Australia and New Zealand as justification for the potential ban. This proposal follows the 2017 constitutional amendment that declared Samoa a “Christian nation.” Legal experts question the constitutionality of such a ban. Article 11 of the Samoan Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The Prime Minister has asked the National Council of Churches to advise the government on the matter. Opposition groups and human rights advocates argue this violates international covenants and domestic law. No legislation has been finalized. The situation creates a direct conflict between the nation’s identity as a Christian state and individual civil liberties.
The Proposal
Subject: Proposal to restrict non-Christian religions.
Date: January 2026
Authority: Prime Minister of Samoa (La’auli Schmidt)
The Prime Minister of Samoa has proposed restricting or banning non-Christian religions. Prime Minister La’auli Schmidt stated that faiths not based on Christian principles should not be accepted in the country. He argues this measure is necessary to protect Samoa from religious extremism and violence observed in neighboring nations.
Why this story? Why now?
This development marks the first major test of Samoa’s 2017 constitutional amendment which officially declared the country a “Christian Nation.” The proposal moves beyond symbolic declarations to potential legal enforcement. It forces a confrontation between the state’s religious identity and the constitutional rights of minority groups.
What are the specifics of the Prime Minister’s proposal?
Prime Minister Schmidt explicitly targeted religions “not founded on God” or the Christian faith. He requested the National Council of Churches to review the status of non-Christian beliefs and advise the government on a path forward.
* Justification: The Prime Minister referenced recent attacks on religious groups in Australia and New Zealand.
* Scope: The ban would likely prevent new non-Christian groups from entering and could restrict existing ones.
* Exclusions: It remains unclear if Judaism is included in the “non-Christian” category the government intends to ban.
* Goal: To eliminate “pagan beliefs” that the administration believes threaten national stability.
How does the 2017 Constitutional Amendment affect this?
In 2017, the Samoan Parliament amended the Constitution to change references to Christianity from the preamble to the body of the text.
* Article 1: The Constitution now declares Samoa a “Christian nation founded on God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
* Intent: This change effectively established a state religion.
* Legal Weight: By moving the language into the body, the government gave the declaration more legal force than a preamble typically holds.
The current administration uses this amendment as the legal bedrock for the proposed restrictions.
Does this proposal violate the Samoan Constitution?
Legal analysts point to a direct conflict within the Constitution itself. While Article 1 declares the nation Christian, Article 11 provides strong protections for individual liberty.
* Article 11: Guarantees every person the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes the right to manifest and propagate any religion or belief.
* Discrimination: Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion.
* International Law: Samoa ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 2008. This treaty mandates religious freedom.
If the government enacts a ban, the judiciary will likely have to decide if the “Christian Nation” clause overrides individual rights.
What is the public and political reaction?
The proposal has generated a mixed response across the Pacific region.
* Support: Certain evangelical groups and supporters of the Prime Minister view the move as a necessary step to align the nation with its divine calling.
* Opposition: The Samoa Observer reported that various church ministers and citizens oppose the ban. They argue it infringes on personal freedoms.
* International Concerns: Human rights organizations warn that such a ban would isolate Samoa diplomatically and violate its treaty obligations.
What to Expect Next
The National Council of Churches will submit its recommendations to the government. If a bill is drafted, it must pass Parliament. Any passed legislation will face immediate challenges in the Supreme Court of Samoa regarding its constitutionality under Article 11.
Commentary
The proposition to ban non-Christian religions in Samoa presents a textbook conflict between theocratic intent and constitutional democracy. A constitution often serves two distinct functions: it defines the character of the state and it protects the rights of the individual against that state. When a government elevates a specific religious identity to a constitutional mandate, it inevitably invites the suppression of dissent. The 2017 amendment was the first step. This proposal is the enforcement mechanism.
Freedom of religion is not merely the right to worship. It is the right to be wrong in the eyes of the majority. If the state determines which theological positions are “valid” or “safe,” it ceases to be a neutral arbiter of law and becomes a theological enforcer. The Prime Minister’s argument regarding safety is a common pretext. History shows that restricting religious liberty in the name of security often leads to greater instability rather than less.
Furthermore, the legal standing of this proposal is precarious. While the “Christian Nation” clause exists, it does not explicitly repeal the Bill of Rights sections of the Samoan Constitution. Courts generally interpret conflicting constitutional provisions in a way that preserves individual liberty. A total ban on non-Christian faiths would render the freedom of conscience clause a nullity. You cannot have a right to choose your religion if the menu is limited by the government.
Finally, the international ramifications are severe. Samoa cannot easily divorce itself from the global consensus on human rights without economic and diplomatic consequences. By proposing this ban, the government risks transforming a theological preference into a human rights crisis.
Citations
* “Samoa considers ban on non-Christian religions.” Islands Business, 1 Jan. 2026, https://islandsbusiness.com/news-break/samoa-considers-ban-on-non-christian-religions/.
* “Mixed reactions over Samoan PM’s proposal to ban non-Christian religions.” Asia Pacific Report, 12 Jan. 2026, https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/01/12/mixed-reactions-over-samoan-pms-proposal-to-ban-non-christian-religions/.
* “Samoa 1962 (rev. 2017) Constitution.” Constitute Project, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Samoa_2017.
Subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV
If you value truth and legal clarity, like and share this article. Subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV for breaking news and case information. Subscribers get access to breaking news and case information.
Disclaimers
This article was assisted by AI.
This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.
Tags
Samoa religious freedom, Christian state constitution, La’auli Schmidt, religious extremism ban, Pacific human rights law