African Humanism Today: Dr. Leo Igwe and Tauya Chinama on Progress, Persecution, and the Future of Secular Leadership

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/22

Dr. Leo Igwe is a Nigerian human rights advocate and leading African humanist known for his work on religious freedom, rationalism, and the protection of victims of witchcraft accusations. He founded the Humanist Association of Nigeria and has spent decades confronting harmful religious practices across the continent.

Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean humanist leader, educator, and interfaith dialogue participant focused on advancing secular values and community empowerment. Drawing from religious training and cultural knowledge, he works to strengthen humanist visibility, reform harmful norms, and build cooperative projects that promote dignity, tolerance, and African-centred humanistic ethics.

In this wide-ranging conversation, Dr. Leo Igwe and Tauya Chinama examine the evolving landscape of African humanism, highlighting gains in visibility alongside persistent dangers from blasphemy laws, religious extremism, and entrenched prejudice. Igwe details how cases such as Mubarak Bala’s imprisonment exposed systemic failures in Nigeria’s protection of non-believers. Chinama describes Zimbabwe’s shifting religious terrain, emerging interfaith engagement, and efforts to build humanist-led community initiatives. Both emphasize that African humanism must develop political and economic infrastructure, confront religiously sanctioned abuses, and adapt to local realities rather than replicating Western models. They point toward an African-rooted humanism capable of real social impact.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with people who have rich experience in the humanist movement from two distinct regions of Africa—primarily the Zimbabwean context in one case and the Nigerian context in another. Regionally, you are more aware because you live in and know those areas far better than I do. About African humanism, in broad and general terms, what are the areas of progress, and what are the areas of stagnation where you have not seen much movement in a humanistic direction?

Dr. Leo Igwe: The progress is that we are at least noticing increased visibility. The internet superhighway has made it possible for local efforts to gain publicity and visibility for groups, meetings, and perspectives that, before the internet, nobody would have known about.

In that area, we have made significant progress, but it has come at a high cost because blasphemy laws and apostasy laws are still enforced in several African countries, both legally and in practice. In other words, as a humanist, if you come out openly and say what you believe or think, some people feel they have the natural right to be offended because they have been socialized to view a humanist as a deviant, a religious deviant.

It remains very challenging and risky, especially for those who live in Muslim-dominated societies where forms of Sharia law apply. So, we have made progress, but there are still many risks and challenges.

Tauya Chinama: In my country, there is some progress. Our last census recorded that around 8-10% of people in Zimbabwe are non-religious. Although they did not explicitly identify as humanists, the statistics show that this non-religious population is roughly comparable to, and in some surveys slightly larger than, the Catholic population, which is about 6 to 8 percent of Zimbabweans.

I remember last year in December, when we were together with Dr. Leo in South Africa, I joked that I was the Archbishop of Humanism in Zimbabwe and that I had more followers than the Catholic Church.

There are still risks associated with being openly humanist. People tend to think you are somehow evil, which means we have a lot of work to do to demonstrate that we mean well and want to help. We are trying our best and trying to be visible. Thanks to the digital era, information is much less controlled. As I speak, I have been invited to various inter-religious dialogue sessions.

My brother Leo mentioned Muslim-dominated countries. The Muslims here are broadly divided into two main groups: Sunni and Shia. In many contexts, the Sunni tradition is seen as more hardline, but in Zimbabwe, the Shia community—usually connected to the Islamic Republic of Iran—often invites me to their inter-religious dialogues.

They know very well that I am a humanist. They invite people of other faiths, including me. I am happy with that recognition.

It is improving how people see us, and when we are allowed to speak first, we present our point of view clearly and show that we intend good for the community. For now, that is what I can say while waiting for your next question. Back to you, my brother.

Jacobsen: Where would you say you’ve had the most significant win this year? Leo, I know you do many interventions. Tauya, I know you’ve been highly involved. Where have you seen the biggest humanist wins? Have any blasphemy laws been removed or softened? Have there been witchcraft cases where you’ve made a positive intervention in the lives of children or older women who have been abandoned?

Igwe: Some of our biggest wins this year in Nigeria include the fact that Mubarak did not spend—and is not going to spend—the initially imposed 25 years in prison. The judgment was reviewed, and the prison sentence was reduced to the period he had already served. For us, this was a significant relief. Even though the conviction was not overturned, everyone in the humanist movement was relieved that he would not spend decades in prison.

This created an opportunity for a national discussion about freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria and the extent to which the country fails to meet its responsibility to protect that right for all citizens. Until now, discussions about religion in Nigeria have focused mainly on the idea that the population is divided between Muslims and Christians, with little attention given to non-religious people.

Mubarak’s case helped raise awareness that humanists exist in Nigeria, that they have rights, and that those rights are tied to the state’s obligations to protect freedom of religion or belief. In that sense, it is a significant win.

The United States has now designated Nigeria as a country of particular concern due to severe violations of religious freedom. This designation reflects not only violations affecting Christians or Muslims, but also violations affecting non-religious individuals.

There is now an international focus on Nigeria that we have not seen in previous years, driven in part by Mubarak’s arrest and imprisonment and by the way the humanist movement in Nigeria organized, campaigned, and applied pressure until he was released.

Jacobsen: What is a critical point to make about the environment or context in which one thinks about and lives out their humanism in Nigeria or Zimbabwe? In other words, what are some aspects of humanism as it is lived there that should be understood as distinct from the ways it is expressed in places like Asia, Europe, Latin America, or North America?

Igwe: This response is easier to understand if one has an overview of how humanism operates in other countries or continents. Based on my own experience, we have a particular situation here. We live in a country where two foreign religions—Islam and Christianity—compete for dominance, alongside traditional religions, various minority faiths, and humanists.

Context matters. Humanists here are not only offering an alternative to religion; we also need interfaith and inter-belief mechanisms because all these religious groups preach against non-believers. Islam preaches against non-believers. Christians preach against non-believers. I have a family member who prays daily that God should make unbelievers come to the Christian faith.

This is the environment we live in. In the United States, they talk about Christian nationalism. In India, Hindu nationalism. In Nigeria, humanists contend simultaneously with Islamic nationalism, Islamic separatism, Islamic extremism, Christian nationalism, Christian separatism, and Christian extremism. In addition, there is a resurgence of traditional religions, with political implications.

It is within this complex religious landscape that humanists must negotiate a place for themselves as an alternative to supernatural faiths and the dominant myths and narratives that shape the country.

Chinama: We have a similar situation, but Zimbabwe is predominantly Christian. Other religions and non-religious people are in the minority. Recently, however, our curriculum has become more heritage-based, as I mentioned before, focusing on the country’s history before colonization—how people lived and what we can take from the past. It is similar to the Ghanaian concept of Sankofa, which teaches that there is value in returning to the past to reclaim what was good and forgotten.

On Sunday, you spoke with my fellow Zimbabwean, Rainos Moyo. He is also involved in this effort. He is trying to revive traditional perspectives and limit the unfair dominance of a single religion. In that respect, we are making progress, but we must be diplomatic, avoid confrontation, and engage rationally so people understand what we are doing as humanists.

We also have expectations. If all goes well, I hope to present the humanist position here in Zimbabwe—and possibly in neighbouring countries—at the upcoming congress in Canada, provided the funds permit me.

Here, together with other humanists such as Mxolisi Masuku, we are trying to secure a farm where we can run projects and eventually establish a small cooperative or scheme. We want to build systems, not simply criticize existing ones. We want to produce alternatives that show we can coexist regardless of religious belief.

We should be able to say: I am a humanist, but I can defend your right to be a Christian. I can protect your right to be a Hindu. I can protect your right to be a Muslim. I can defend your right to be a Jew. You have the right to your faith. As long as no one is forcing you, and you freely choose your religion, I can defend your right to follow it.

We want to reach that level, not to be seen as people fighting other religions. That is what I can say for now.

Igwe: I want to add that we must confront religions when they are used to abuse children, abuse women, or to justify cruelty. We must confront evil. When that evil is sanctified by faith, we must confront the religion enabling it. Religion has been used to purify human sacrifice, directly and indirectly.

On that basis, we must challenge religion, and no continent is better positioned to do so than Africa. The dominant religions—Islam and Christianity—were introduced by people who enslaved Africans, and by societies that historically have not regarded Africans as equal in dignity and rights.

There is still tacit racism in the way other continents relate to Africa. Look at global politics today: Africans are treated as a worldwide underclass, as second-class citizens. One mechanism used to legitimize this second-class status is religion.

Christianity introduced the figure known as the “saviour of the world,” Jesus Christ—a mythological figure. Nobody with divine powers can at the same time be a historical human being. This myth was crafted in a Caucasian form, not an African form, and Africans were then encouraged to look toward that imagery as their saviour, reinforcing a hierarchy that elevated the people who introduced the myth.

We must challenge religion when it is used to legitimize racism and the oppression of Africans. The same applies to Islam. Islam introduced, as a role model, a historical figure who was a military leader, and this was used by those who spread Islam in Africa to justify conquest, bloodshed, looting, arson, and forceful acquisition of African resources.

We should not avoid confronting religion. We should confront it whenever it is used to justify the oppression or persecution of Africans.

And this does not apply only to Islam and Christianity. Even African traditional religions contain elements that violate human rights. We must not tolerate those elements. We must resist them. We must reject any form of human rights violation carried out in the name of religion, because that has been the pattern for centuries.

Africans must be alert. Today, Nigeria is in a near-chaotic situation because narratives of violence, fighting, looting, and killing have been repeated for years, embraced by communities, and amplified in some mosques and prayer centers. Now it is difficult to challenge these individuals because opposing them also means opposing their religion, their region, and their ethnic identity—groups that have fully embraced these violent narratives.

My point is this: whenever any religion—traditional, Christian, Muslim, Islamic—or any ideology encourages killing, bloodshed, oppression, or persecution of Africans, Africans must confront it. We must confront it because religion is a human creation. Africans must develop belief systems that prioritize African dignity, safety, progress, and prosperity.

Chinama: I agree with him, but from my perspective, I do not think we should fight religion as religion in its essence. What we should resist are harmful intentions and harmful uses. I see religion as a knife. When a knife is in the hands of a chef, it can be used to cut meat, prepare a meal, and bring people enjoyment. When the same knife is in the hands of a murderer, it can cause enormous harm.

The danger we face as non-religious people is that if we are not careful, we may become the very thing we are fighting. So yes, I agree—we must fight evil. We must not allow those in authority to use religion to sanitize their wrongdoing.

People use religious doctrine in many ways. Religion is flexible. It is not rigid. It can be used to justify good. It can be used to justify evil. I agree that we need a form of religion—or a moral system—that promotes dignity, progress, and rejects racism.

We must not forget that the slave trade was legalized and justified using religion. Colonialism was legalized and justified using religion. It is tragic that the same religions now claim they were responsible for ending the slave trade and colonialism. This demonstrates how religion can be used both to justify good and to justify evil. People use religion to commit immense wrongdoing.

At the same time, we must reflect and avoid becoming like what we are fighting. There is a danger there. Some religious people have already begun to criticize what they call “militant atheism” or “new atheism.” We must proceed with moderation, rationality, reflection, and logical analysis. We must examine and bracket specific ideas about religion, enter into people’s experiences, and try to understand why they behave the way they do. Once we know the root causes, we can work to remove them.

The same way we criticize Christianity today should remind us that many European politicians saw religion as a tool. When Christian persecution ended, figures such as Constantine realized that religion could be used to unify their empire, reduce the risk of uprisings, and secure political stability. Religion became a political instrument.

Religion is a tool. We must work to prevent this tool from being used in harmful ways. We should encourage religious people to use religion in ways that promote dignity and equality.

I agree with Dr. Leo Igwe that Africans still occupy a kind of second-class position in global systems. Look at our position in the United Nations. Colonialism and the slave trade were atrocities, and justice was never delivered.

I was in Zambia last week discussing these issues, saying we should revisit the idea of Ubuntu, reform it, and use it to guide how we relate to each other. Ubuntu emphasizes that I depend on other people.

Today, when Africans move to Europe, we are viewed as a threat, not welcomed. Yet the reason some Africans migrate to Europe is precisely the recognition that they can rely on others for resources they lack—just as those who came to Africa to colonize and enslave relied on Africans, even though they destructively relied on us.

Igwe: When I say “fight,” I do not mean that people should take up weapons or harm religious individuals. When I say “fight,” I mean “debate” or “discussion.” In many countries, people cannot say what they think about religion. We must resist that.

People cannot say what they think about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. Why? These religions were introduced by people who were themselves critical of African traditional religious beliefs. They preached against African conventional beliefs, gained dominance, and gained followers. Now they prohibit free expression and critical views of the very teachings they introduced.

That is what I mean. “Fighting” here means resisting the idea that we cannot express our thoughts about Islam or the provisions of the Qur’an. If you examine the teachings of these religions, one reason they cause so much darkness and destruction in the region is that they are shielded from criticism.

Fighting means criticizing them, highlighting what we believe is absurd, false, misleading, contrary to human dignity, or simply untrue. We must do this.

Religion often hampers our ability to express ourselves intellectually, even though religion itself is a product of intellectual expression. We should not live with this contradiction, whether it concerns African traditional religion, Christianity, or Islam.

We must resist the idea that religion can silence our intellectual growth.

No continent is better positioned to contribute to global enlightenment than Africa. These religions have intersected here in such a way that the world looks to Africa to stand up, wake up, and help bring about another form of renaissance—one that revises these religions in light of 21st-century norms.

In the United States and Europe, people speak romantically about “Christian heritage.” In Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East, people speak romantically about “Islamic heritage.” Meanwhile, both religions contain dark and destructive elements that need to be criticized, exposed, and removed.

But because these societies are deeply attached to their heritage, they romanticize it. It should not be the same for Africa.

Africa should provide a context where extremist elements in these religions—elements that other parts of the world hesitate to confront—are openly addressed. Instead, what is happening now is the opposite. Nigerians are becoming more extreme in their Christianity than the Europeans who introduced Christianity. Nigerian Muslims are becoming more extreme than those who introduced Islam. This should not happen.

African humanism can make a vital contribution, not only locally but internationally, by addressing the extremism that is too often ignored and that has destructive consequences for the region.

Jacobsen: Actually, Leo, one question concerns something you raised about the movement outside of Africa—people of African descent, or more direct African descent—who participate in a “back to Africa” movement. You were critical of that as well. Moving forward, as Tariq said, can incorporate some of what was good while removing supernatural elements that are not productive.

So, for example, in the United States, many people make a distinction between religion as a matter of personal theology and worship, and Christian nationalism as a political ideology. American evangelicals are widely seen as a political movement.

What is your broader view of religion as a whole? Do you see it primarily as a political ideology and a philosophy?

Igwe: It depends on where you are in the world. In the West, where the state is strong, there is a tendency to see religion as a personal belief and as a force that threatens to influence or control the state. That’s why people talk about Christian nationalism and the threat it poses to democracy in places like the United States.

But if you live in Nigeria or many parts of Africa, where the state is weak, and religion is often more powerful than the state, the situation is very different. When Christian evangelicals send money and provide political support for specific bills here, they overwhelm the state because the state lacks the strength to resist them.

And when our humanist counterparts in the West remain quiet, or speak only in hushed tones, avoiding public confrontation, we humanists in places where the state is weak feel let down. They are not doing enough. But they also have their own context.

Religion here is not only about belief. Millions of Nigerians do not even understand the theological content of their faith. It is about belonging rather than belief. Belonging brings political benefits and economic benefits.

This is why I emphasize to the humanist movement: unless we create political and economic capital within humanism, the movement will not become robust. It is not enough to say we are offering an alternative. Are we offering an alternative with political and economic weight that can match Islam or Christianity? If yes, then we are in business. If not, we are out of business.

This is one of the reasons we are not growing in the region. Humanism has not stepped up politically and economically to fill the gap that religion already fills. Christianity has done so with the backing of Western evangelicals. Islam has done so with the support of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other states.

Here, religion is far more than belief. Religion is belonging. Religion is the economy. Religion is politics. Religion is control and power.

If we want to provide an alternative to religion in Nigeria and in Africa, we must equip the humanist movement with political and economic influence and credibility.

Chinama: I agree with my brother Leo regarding economic and political power. For humanists to make meaningful change and to be recognized, we need to be active in politics. We need to be active in business.

If we look at Christianity and Islam today, what made them powerful and popular is precisely their political and economic influence. That is why we use the Gregorian calendar, which Christians designed. At some point in history, Christianity gained political authority.

Even today, if you look at the Roman Catholic pontiff—the leader of the global Catholic community, despite denominational differences—his first international trip was to Lebanon. That trip was not only that of a religious leader; it was the trip of a political, spiritual, and economic leader. The amount of money invested in his security alone demonstrates his power.

He has political power. He has economic power. He has religious power.

As humanists, we need individuals who can reach similar levels of influence in their own countries—whether as ministers, presidents, or leaders of organizations—so that humanists have representation.

More humanists should run for office in their communities. More humanists should participate in business. We need more humanists involved in inter-religious dialogue initiatives. We need humanists even to visit figures like the Roman Catholic pontiff, to discuss important topics and present a humanist perspective.

We must be recognized politically and economically. I agree with Leo on that. We must work toward it because it will lead to growth.

As Zimbabwean, Southern African, and African humanists more broadly, we need leadership training. Leaders do not fall from heaven. Leaders are created within societies. We must train people in what it means to be a humanist leader in politics, in business, and in society. I agree with Leo on this.

Jacobsen: Outside of yourselves, who would you consider 20th- or 21st-century leaders in the humanist space in Africa? They do not necessarily have to identify as humanists, but their life philosophy may have been essentially humanistic.

Chinama:  If we look country by country, there are different people we can refer to. Every country has individuals who care deeply about humanity. Only a few are vocal.

In West Africa, we have my brother Leo and leaders like Roslyn. I consider them leaders in humanism.

In Southern Africa, we have people like Dean Kruger in South Africa. In Botswana, there are emerging voices. I include myself here in Zimbabwe. In Malawi, we have a Wonderful Mkhutshe.

In East Africa, we have people such as Brian Kabeko and Dennis Dbongole.

What is missing among these leaders is coordination. If we could form alliances—West Africa alliances, Southern Africa alliances, East Africa alliances—it would strengthen us. North Africa is more difficult due to the predominance of Islamic cultural environments, where humanism has a harder time emerging.

We could move forward rather than wait. Instead of waiting for international conferences, we could hold our own regional meetings and, eventually, a continental conference before expanding outward. We can work on that.

Igwe: The reality is that it has not been politically acceptable for people to identify as humanists openly. Because of that, many people who are humanists have been labelled—or have labelled themselves—as religious. This is what we must challenge. People should be able to say who they are and what they believe.

One of the harmful aspects of religion in practice is that it pressures people to present themselves as religious even when they are not. It pressures people to claim belief when they do not hold it.

I consider Nelson Mandela a humanist. I consider him a humanist in his values and actions. The same goes for Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe, and the Kenyan Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Maathai. Across the region, we have several individuals whose writing and legacy show that, even if they identified as Christian for social or political reasons, their worldview was essentially humanistic.

I also know a Catholic priest, Enyeribe Onuoha, who left the priesthood and started a traditional religious group because he believed Christianity was simply the conventional religion of another people imposed on Africans. For him, religion was a human creation—a human activity.

Anyone who believes that religion is a human creation, or that gods are human creations, is essentially a humanist, even if they still identify publicly with a religion. Many people want community, celebration, and social gathering, and that sense of community is why many people continue to identify as religious.

Many prominent African writers, authors, and politicians were humanists in orientation, even though they identified as religious for political reasons or to present themselves in a socially acceptable way.

Chinama: I agree with Dr. Leo about well-known figures being humanists in practice. It is not easy to identify openly as a humanist. It takes courage. Sometimes, to gain that courage, one must understand the religious terrain.

People like myself and Dr. Leo were once inside religious systems. Unfortunately for the churches, they lost us—we were on track to become priests. If we had not changed our minds, I might be a priest or Leo even a bishop now.

The knowledge we gained from being inside religion helps us navigate how to announce our humanism and be accepted. People who have never gone through religious training often do not know how to disclose their humanism. We know people who have been inside that life and are struggling with it.

I have friends—sisters, priests, brothers—who admire my position and speak privately about their struggles. They want to leave religion. I am sure Dr. Leo faces the same.

In 2022, Dr. Leo and I developed the “Excellence Project,” intended to provide psychosocial support to people leaving the priesthood or other forms of religious service. We were not able to move it forward, but we should revise it because many people need support. If we revise it, we will have more clients, and it could become a significant contribution African humanists make to those struggling to leave religion—especially priests, sisters, brothers, pastors, imams, rabbis, and others.

Jacobsen: Looking ahead, what about intergovernmental partnerships to ensure humanists receive formal recognition? What about interfaith conferences, seminars, and workshops so that community tensions based on ignorance can be lowered, and the treatment of humanists—or non-religious people generally—can improve in parts of the country where it is awful?

Igwe: Intergovernmental and interfaith initiatives are very laudable. But we must ask: how did we get here?

We did not arrive at this point simply because intergovernmental or interfaith initiatives failed. We came here because of deep, entrenched brainwashing—generations of mental indoctrination. From cradle to grave, many people are taught that their religion is the best and that everyone else is in error. As long as this indoctrination continues, change will be difficult.

So these intergovernmental initiatives that bring humanists and religious people together are necessary. They are essential if we want to lower tensions, because tensions are created within the religion itself and in the way people are raised.

I met a Muslim woman who told me she memorized the Qur’an before she was able to reason. The result is that she cannot reason outside the Qur’an. Many people cannot reason outside their religion.

Interfaith and intergovernmental initiatives are therefore necessary if we are to make progress, given the challenges we face today.

Jacobsen: Have you seen any religious changes in your lifetime in Africa, where they have actually “lightened up,” so to speak? Have they become more tolerant of the non-religious or even accepting of people who do not believe in a God or the supernatural?

Igwe: I am a first-generation humanist, so it is difficult for me to answer that fully. In the next 20 or 30 years, people will be better positioned to evaluate these changes.

But I do know that religion is not monolithic. There are factions, groups, and denominations. For example, I am currently registered with a Protestant chapel as a humanist chaplain for the police.

They told me they would make me a stakeholder, but not a chaplain, because one must be a pastor to hold that title. I told them I am not a pastor—I am a humanist. They agreed to include me as a stakeholder instead. We are negotiating how they can accommodate me. They are willing, but they are struggling because they are accustomed to a particular structure.

Religion includes groups that are more open than others, especially minority ones. Religion does change, but very slowly. The religion practiced fifty or a hundred years from now may be far more liberal than what we see today—or possibly more conservative. The same is true when we look backward.

For example, when I was growing up, women did not wear trousers to church. Today they do. When I was growing up, drums were not used in church. Today they are common.

Religion changes, but it takes a long time. That is why we must work hard as humanists to highlight areas where change and reform are possible, so that some of the issues we face today with religious extremism can be challenged and resolved.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on the conversation today? Any final thoughts, Talia or Leo, so that we can wrap up?

Igwe: In conclusion, humanists need to step up. If we claim we will provide an alternative to religion on a continent as deeply religious as Africa, then we must step up. We cannot copy and paste what is done in the West, where the state is strong.

Humanist leaders in the United States, Canada, and Europe should not impose templates from their countries, where the state protects citizens and provides services. That template does not work here. We need a model that reflects our conditions, where the state is weak and where humanism must take on roles that religious institutions often fill.

Humanism must become more than a community that meets during holidays. It must provide support—community support—for people facing difficult times.

Humanism must be able to deliver certain services: chaplaincy, counselling, and sometimes economic assistance or job support for people going through hardship.

We must deliver humanism in a way that addresses our specific social, political, and economic needs and challenges.

Chinama: Yes. In support of Dr. Leo’s remarks, we need a vision of humanism designed for African societies. The way humanism is practiced in Nigeria might not be the way it should be practiced in Zimbabwe.

We often face the challenge of copying and pasting practices from other countries. For example, when Zimbabwe receives a grant from the West, donors insist on strict accountability procedures that require every detail to be documented. But here in Zimbabwe, institutions and systems are not always functional enough to produce paperwork for every service or every resource acquired. This becomes difficult.

So, when dealing with such matters, local African people should decide how to provide these services. We should be able to provide education, chaplaincy, counselling, and other forms of support.

In computer science and engineering, when a system does not work, it does not make sense to keep patching it. You must create a new system compatible with the problem you want to solve. The same applies to humanism.

Humanism as practiced in Asia, Europe, or America may not be suitable for Africa. And even within Africa, the continent is diverse. Humanism in West Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, and North Africa may look slightly different in each region.

With these words, I rest my case. Thank you.

Jacobsen: Leo, Tauya, thank you very much.

Igwe: Bye.

Chinama: Thank you very much. Goodbye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.