Kenyan faith leaders raise concerns over detention of South Korean church leader
By Lavender Kusimba, July 14, 2026When Kenyan religious leaders gathered in Nairobi to discuss the detention of South Korean religious leader Man-Hee Lee, they were doing more than commenting on a foreign court case.
They were highlighting a growing trend in which faith leaders are increasingly becoming international advocates for human rights, arguing that justice should be measured not only by legal procedures but also by humanitarian principles.
The meeting on Monday, July 13, 2026, convened by religious scholars from different faith traditions, centred on the continued detention of the 95-year-old Chairman of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, who is facing criminal charges in South Korea over claims of political interference. Lee has denied the accusations, and his trial is ongoing.
While the legal case itself remains for South Korean courts to determine, the Kenyan delegation deliberately shifted attention to another question: how should justice systems treat elderly defendants before they have been convicted?
Their intervention reflects an emerging global debate. Across many democracies, courts increasingly face difficult decisions involving elderly suspects whose age and health may complicate prolonged detention. Human rights advocates argue that while accountability must never be compromised, humanitarian considerations should remain part of judicial decision-making, particularly where there is no conviction.
“The campaign is a cry for human rights,” said Rev. Dr. Joseph Maryale, who previously worked with the United Nations Development Programme, UN-Habitat and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “It is a campaign to check on human rights, to follow the rule of law, the international standards of law and the Korean standards of law. When the law is not followed to the letter, then there is violation of human rights.”
Appeal for judicial fairness
Unlike political activists, the religious leaders repeatedly avoided declaring Lee innocent. Instead, they framed their appeal around legal safeguards recognised in international human rights law, including the presumption of innocence, equal treatment before the law and the right to prepare an adequate defence.
Rev. Dr. Jechoniah Wambua Musembi argued that freedom of conscience and belief should remain protected regardless of public opinion surrounding a religious movement.
“According to United Nations standards of democracy, every human being has a right of conscience, belief and association,” he said.
The Nairobi forum also exposed another challenge confronting modern justice systems: balancing public sentiment with judicial independence. Religious minorities often become subjects of intense public scrutiny, particularly when criminal allegations emerge against their leaders. Legal scholars have long warned that such public pressure can influence perceptions long before a verdict is delivered.
That concern was echoed by Imam Abdul Haneen, who urged courts to ensure that legal decisions are based solely on evidence.
“We are not questioning the Republic of Korea’s judicial sovereignty,” he said. “We are calling for the highest standards of fairness, proportionality and humanity, especially when a defendant is 95 years old. A person must be judged by law and evidence, not by religious identity or public perception.”
Whether South Korean authorities respond to the appeal remains uncertain. However, the significance of the Nairobi meeting extends beyond one defendant. It illustrates how Kenyan religious leaders are increasingly positioning themselves within international conversations on justice, religious freedom and human rights.
As legal systems worldwide confront cases involving ageing populations, minority faiths and politically sensitive prosecutions, the questions raised in Nairobi are unlikely to disappear. The challenge for modern democracies will be maintaining public confidence in the rule of law while ensuring that justice remains humane, impartial and firmly grounded in fundamental rights.