The Dioceses of North Malawi and Lake Malawi – secret Courts of Confirmation – yet more on the case of the late Canon Rodney Hunter

The acting 'Archbishop' of the Central African Province - Bishop Albert Chama

From: ANGLICAN-INFORMATION

Acting Dean of the Province of Central Africa the Rt Rev’d Albert Chama of Northern Zambia has forced two clandestine Courts of Confirmation against the wishes of objectors. The Confirmation of Fr. Leslie Mtekateka for Northern Malawi has taken place in Mzuzu but not yet been announced and in Lake Malawi, despite a Court injunction prohibiting it, the confirmation of the Venerable Francis Kaulanda has apparently been completed.

Albert Chama who interestingly now describes himself as ‘The Acting Archbishop of Central Africa’ and refers to the other bishops as ‘my bishops’, has not yet revealed the proposed dates for the consecration of the new bishops. He has however, declared that he does not recognise the jurisdiction of the civil courts thereby putting himself and the other bishops in a potential head on clash with the civil authorities.

We publish below a letter from one of the 150 objectors to the ‘election’ of the Venerable Francis Kaulanda as Bishop of Lake Malawi. Which raises serious questions about the actions of Albert Chama and sadly the credibility of the Venerable Francis Kaulanda. The letter has been circulated to all the Bishops of Central Africa and their staff.

It is ironic that Albert Chama in a sermon preached in the Episcopal Grace Cathedral San Francisco on 5th July 2009 said, “we need to be aware of those who suffer in silence – we need to stand up for those who have been declared outcasts even if their context is dangerous for us”. It is not clear at this point whether he was speaking of gay people in San Francisco and Africa or the African women he describes as being “treated as property”. Certainly he does not appear to include lay people who disagree with him.


To: All Bishops
Church of the Province of Central Africa
From: Mr. G. A Mwale
All Saints Cathedral
P. O Box 133
Nkhotakota 2nd February 2010

Dear Our Lord Bishops,

The Composition of Court of Confirmation

I am a full age member of the Anglican Church Diocese of Lake Malawi, a communicant of the church of honest life and good repute. Our Lord Bishops of the Province of Central Africa you have not solved the problems by defying the court injunction, which was obtained by some of our faithful against the confirmation of Reverend Francis Kaulanda. It is the fact that this is an internal matter which only Anglicans in the Diocese and possibly with the help of other Anglicans else where in this Province can solve. But it is very unfortunate that our Provincial leaders have chosen to live in a state of denial by observing that the High Court of Malawi has no jurisdiction to stop the process. They knew that there are other precedents with the Anglican of purely Church matters being taken to the High Court of Malawi. This is all because of failure to resolve the matter of the Church among ourselves.

Canon 7 is all about the Court of Confirmation whereby all Bishops or by the commissaries are summoned by the Archbishop or Dean of the Province to appear before the court. The procedure of lodging complaints was followed and all letters were sent to the Registrar but the true fact is that objectors were not invited instead they invited the supporters of the Bishop elect which means that the composition of the court of confirmation held in Lilongwe on 22nd September 2009 was not the right one.

It is clear that the Bishop elect did not attend Bandawe Secondary School as alleged in his curriculum vitae. It is likely that he does not have any certificate being offered by the examinations board in Malawi. Somebody without such qualifications cannot competently represent the Diocese at national or indeed at international level. And the Diocese is likely to fail into disrepute if someone of his lack of learning is made a Bishop of this core Diocese.
Its our prayer that the court of confirmation should held in accordance with the Canons, objectors should be invited, they should be given enough notice (Place, Time and Date) so that they should thoroughly prepare for the case.

I pray to you Our Lord Bishops that you should not see the objectors as rebels of the Church as they have the canonical right to raise the objections per Canon 7:5

May the good Lord Bless You

Yours Servant in Christ

Mr. G.A Mwale
Church Councillor

.............................

Ongoing uncertainty regarding the claimed poisoning of the late Canon Rodney Hunter

The trial re-opened in Lilongwe High Court on Tuesday 23rd February when further consideration was to have been given to the claimed poisoning of the late Canon Rodney Hunter, a British priest whose cook Leonard Mondoma is implausibly supposed to have murdered.

For the second time the two doctors in the case, the pathologist who conduced the post-mortem on Hunter and the doctor who treated him prior to his death, both failed to turn up. The judge has reportedly given them one more chance to present their evidence on a date to be decided.

This case, often covered by us, seem to rest almost entirely on the accusations of a twice -suspended priest the Rev’d Dennis Kayamba and the over enthusiastic reportage of the U.K. Times religious affairs correspondent.

Want to have your say?

Comment below or visit our companion blogsite:

http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

Homophobia in Africa a compassionate view to counter the infamous Nolbert Kunonga

From: ANGLICAN-INFORMATION Recently we have observed an apparent tide of homophobia sweeping parts of Africa. Web traffic reports that the traditionally conservative African social ethos has been stirred up aggressively by conservative North American evangelists. ‘Sex and gender’ American cultural wars of the kind currently troubling the Anglican Communion are being exported into Africa.

Hats off to Bishops Gandiya, Bakare, Chama and Mwamba!

Such intrusions into Africa have been eagerly taken up by renegade ‘Archbishop’ Nolbert Kunonga, a Zimbabwean bishop who broke away from the Church of the Province of Central Africa in 2008. He has repeatedly accused the Central African Bishops of being gay, pro-gay or variations on this theme as an excuse for his actions against Anglican Christians of the Diocese of Harare. Kunonga, a sometime protégé of former Archbishop Bernard Malango, has been closely implicated in numerous acts of terror and violence against worshippers. Kunonga has been instrumental in resisting both Bishops Sebastian Bakare and latterly Bishop Chad Gandiya in their efforts to oversee the Diocese of Harare.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION have received a letter, parts of which we publish below, that shows a rather more compassionate and reflective view from within the Diocese of Harare. Reflecting the current febrile atmosphere we have withheld the names of the senders for their own security.

Hats off to Bishop Chad Gandiya!
Please publish this article for the benefit of faithful Anglicans in Harare:
‘The downfall of the former Bishop of Harare, Nolbert Kunonga, was a result of his dinosaur mentality, by which he has remained trapped in the past. Today’s Church needs progressive bishops who are in step with the changing world, where human rights are respected and observed without reservation. Time and culture continue to transform the face of the earth, as humankind becomes more civilized and liberation from the mindset of the middle ages continues. Kunonga has been a cause of immense pain because of unaccommodating thinking, which has seen many leave the Anglican Church, even before the present crisis, for churches where the human nature is better comprehended in line with a transforming world of science.

Sexual preference, or homosexuality is not a sin as Kunonga would like to have people believe. This is a condition over which no one has any control, a genetically motivated behaviour. We are profoundly grateful for the emergence of such progressive bishops such as our beloved Bishop Chad Gandiya, who realize that homosexuality is not simply a scourge of darkness. This reality has remained suppressed because of backward and unreasonable bishops such as Kunonga. Such people are concealed behind conservatism, and offer utterly nonsensical words such as orthodoxy when they mean a particular view of sexuality.

The former bishop Kunonga, or better, the disgraced and defrocked clergyman he is, deserves the present desertion by most, if not all, the faithful because he continues to profess archaic ideas of a long dead world. Homosexuals and lesbians exist as a fact, and caring bishops such as Chad Gandiya, should continue to hold high the flag of human rights. With our beloved Chad Gandiya at the helm of the Anglican Church, Zimbabwe will at last be free from an oppressive mentality and experience growth in a free society.

Hats off to Bishop Chad Gandiya, who joins other luminaries such as bishops Sebastian Bakare, Albert Chama and Trevor Mwamba who have openly resisted the persecution of gay and lesbian people’.

Want to have your say?

Comment below or
visit our companion blogsite: http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

.

Discretionary money

Alongside the formal structures of the Anglican Communion are two linked funds to which members of the AC can apply for assistance.

On the global scale of things they don't offer big money (though no doubt invaluable to recipients) and they are not big funds. But they are significant in that, in addition to grant aid around the Communion, they also give the ACC a degree of flexibility and the potential for new developments at a Communion-wide level which would otherwise be very difficult to fund.

The funds are:

The Archbishop of Canterbury's Anglican Communion Fund (Charity Commission pages) It doesn't seem to have its own website.

and a US parallel - The Friends of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Anglican Communion Fund (website)

Funds are built up from a linked trust: the Anglican Investment Agency Trust (website, Charity Commission pages). Investment firms give the equivalent of "50% of fees from participating accounts."

There seem to be three main groups grants / beneficiaries:

• A Personal Emergencies Fund for "urgent or critical medical needs of bishops, clergy, lay-workers, and their families or dependants." (Anglican Communion website - page looks old - 2001-2001? - and is not dated. I guess this fund was at some point rolled into the newer, larger, present fund.)


• Grants to central Communion structures (not least the Office of the Anglican Observer at the United Nations, the Network for Inter Faith Concerns, and the Anglican Centre in Rome)


• General grants (e.g. for new projects, to help rebuild after natural disaster and some new construction projects, to strengthen governance in weaker dioceses) Some headings are vague: 'to support the Church in Myanmar'; and some intriguing, e.g. Cuba: 'Relief for results of a sudden unexpected reduction of diocesan revenue by more than half'', though no doubt all are worthy.

All listed here. Go to 'Successful Grant Applications 1997-2007' and in the Annual Reports of the ABC's Anglican Communion Fund available through the Charity Commission site.

There are two key political points to be made about these funds.

First they shows the degree to which communion-wide work which is dependent on discretionary grants and, conversely, the limitations of central funds for innovative work.

Second, their personnel ae overwhelmingly UK and US - reinforcing complaints, especially from Africa, that the Communion continues to be run from Washington and London.



I can't tell much from the list of American Trustees though it is clear that Mr and Mrs Carr are the key people and all of them seem to be powerful money people - The Rev Steven K Green, for example, is (or was) Chief Executive Officer, HSBC Holdings.

The three trusts are closely linked through overlapping trusteeships and, in turn, overlap with the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. The trustees of the ABC's Anglican Communion Fund are nominated by the ACC, the AIA trust (above) and the Primates' Standing Committee. Others are co-opted (in 2008 - the Anglican Observer at the UN, the Bishop of Peshawar, Emmanuel Olatunji from the Council of Anglican provinces of Africa, and from USPG and CMS. There are three ex-officio trustees: the ABC himself, the Chair of the Inter-Anglican Finance Committee and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion (sic) who is also ex officio on the AIA Trust.

The critical question will be: how can or will access to these discretionary funds be used as part of the 'relational consequences' which would, under the proposed Covenant, constitute the leverage of the centre over ostensibly autonomous Provinces?

Reports from Malawi: Bishop James Tengatenga's sabbatical difficulties, poisoning case resumes, Northern Malawi confirms

Bishop James Tengatenga at work in the wider Anglican world

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION reports:

Southern Malawi – Bishop James Tengatenga’s sabbatical difficulties

Our correspondent reports: ‘The Southern Malawi Board of Finance presented its 2010 budget to Bishop James Tengatenga and he did not like how it was arranged because the bursaries for his children were low. Tengatenga consulted his clergy and the clergy trimmed the budget again! This led Bishop James to grow angry saying that he was targeted by both laity and clergy. He has told them that when he returns from his six month sabbatical leave in the United States he will decide whether to resign or not and the laity and clergy have been asked to think about it on their part’.

……………………….

Northern Malawi – Court of Confirmation

Despite earlier objections which delayed his confirmation, Fr Leslie Mtekateka formerly of St Timothy’s, Chitipa will almost certainly be confirmed on Friday 12th February at a Court to be held in Mzuzu. Some of the bishops who should be present will be represented by diocesan priests. Mtekateka replaces former Bishop Christopher Boyle who resigned last year to take up a position as an assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Leicester, U.K.

……………………….

Diocese of Lake Malawi – Unsubstantiated accusations of poisoning – continuing court case in Nkhota-kota

The trial resumes earlier than expected on Wednesday 10th February in Nkhota-kota, Diocese of Lake Malawi. Leonard Mondoma cook to the late Canon Rodney Hunter an English priest who died in November 2006 was accused by twice-suspended priest the Rev’d Dennis Kayamba of poisoning his employer. Thus far no evidence has emerged to suggest that Hunter died of anything other than terminal cancer for which he had been treated in the U.K..

Shortly after the accusations some parts of the British press conducted a witch-hunt against Mondoma with condemnatory headlines based on no evidence. Mondoma’s case is supremely ironic considering that he was always Hunter’s most loyal employee and vocal supporter.

During the first part of the trial held in January, Dennis Kayamba the chief accuser was unable to explain how he could have known that Mondoma was a poisoner before any evidence was produced. Kayamba was also unable to explain why he was in possession of the late Canon Hunter’s will and house keys.

For what was almost certainly a false accusation Mondoma was held in life-threatening conditions in prison in Nkota-kota for 18 months, one year of which he was uncharged.

Medical evidence will be given at the resumed case starting this week.

………………………..

Diocese of Lake Malawi – Continued impasse

Following an unprecedented number of objections to his election the Venerable Francis Kaulanda, Archdeacon of Lilongwe, remains unconsecrated. According to the Malawi Nation Newspaper 25th September 2009 the Bishops have confirmed the election but this remains disputed. The matter remains subject to a Court injunction brought by the protestors.

Want to have your say? Comment below

or
try our companion blogsite:
http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

The centralised state of Anglicanism

Anglicanism now has centralised control over the organs of the Communion and the beginnings of central government in the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (see below).

Which raises the question of the manner in which such a body may, can and probably will exercise that control.

Current powers and duties
(Note: non-members are at a considerable disadvantage since it is known that there are new governing documents for the ACC but they are not yet public. I am assuming that no previous powers will have been discarded but it is impossible to guess what might have been added.)

Officially:

The role of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) is to facilitate the co-operative work of the churches of the Anglican Communion, exchange information between the Provinces and churches, and help to co-ordinate common action. It advises on the organisation and structures of the Communion, and seeks to develop common policies with respect to the world mission of the Church, including ecumenical matters. (ACC official site).

It is most unlikely that these verbs and roles: 'facilitate' 'exchange' 'help co-ordinate' 'advises' will change. These are servant ministries and will remain invaluable however the Communion develops.

But there are already other verbs and duties which arise from the charitable status of the ACO and the identification of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion as trustees. In particular,

Trustees can generally delegate certain powers to agents or employees, but will and must always retain the ultimate responsibility for running the charity. (The Essential Trustee, Charity Commission CC3)

The work may be done by others but the buck always stops with the trustees. It follows that the ACC and Primates may advise the trustees but they cannot instruct it.

The ACC and the Primates' Meetings are financed pout of the general funds of the SCAC.

Indirect powers
The SCAC also has some responsibility for some of the official international working bodies of the Communion. These include:

• Ecumenical conversations
• Commission on Mission and Evangelism.
• United Nations Observer
• Task Group on Theological Education.
• Family Network.

The SCAC is responsible for their running costs, either wholly or in part, and by being a conduit through which money is channelled for specific purposes.

I have no way of knowing how independent these bodies are either in theory or in practice.

Informal powers
The SCAC is also responsible for the Anglican Communion website and for communicating the work of the Communion to a global audience.

The ACO sits at the heart of confidential communication and information networks and control of such information is an extremely important soft power.

There are also a couple of grant making bodies open to applications from members of the Anglican Communion closely aligned to the ACO.

Powers to be given to the SC if the Covenant is effected
I do not think that much will change quickly if the Covenant passes. I do think that change will only be in one direction: reinforcing the centre. The Covenant - both by its presence and by any use of its clauses directed at preventing unwelcome innovation - will be a steady engine driving the communion towards a more uniform and more centrally controlled body. In turn this will lead to demands for more (and more public) regulation of the way the central organs operate and thus a steadily greater legalisation of governance.

The final version has thrown out much of the legalistic language and procedures and also much of the sense of threat of sanctions which would meet any would-be doctrinal innovator. The strengthened affirmations of Provincial autonomy are welcome.

But the punitive mechanisms remain. They've simply been transferred from the document into the discretion of those administering the Covenant - the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. The powers - to declare that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant” (4.2.6) and to make reccommendations on the relational consequences of un-Covenantal innovation (4.2.5) - remain significant.

The SCAC won't merely 'reccommend' in a kind of avuncular way. Such a reccommendation would almost certainly already be cleared with the Primates' Meeting (5 of whose members would be reccommending), and be made with a fair sense of how the ACC might vote (if it came to a vote). Not to do so would risk losing sight of the issue in a battle over which body governed. Furthermore it would be a reccommendation from a body which controls access to much Communion-wide networks and the common purse.

And there is no need to wait for a crisis in a reactive way. The Covenant proposes to give the SCAC the duty to

(4.2.2) monitor the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion on behalf of the Instruments (though this may in part be delegated to other committees or commissions)

This is duty of scrutiny and oversight which does not currently exist in the Communion and how it will be conducted is not at all clear.

How the SCAC works internally will become a matter of considerable interest. For example, it met in London in December 2009. The only statement from that meeting was in reponse to the TEC's nomination of a partnered lesbian as a candidate to be Bishop of Los Angeles, decisions in North America to permit formal blessings of same-sex partnerships (and, for balance, continued cross-border incursions). The statement reaffirmed the committee's commitment to the moratorium on such actions.

Does this bind all members, including the Presiding Bishop of TEC? Was the decision reached unanimously or by majority vote? Does its decisions bind all members equally? What weight do the Provinces give to its decisions? Indeed, are its decisions reported to all the Provinces governing bodies? And does this statement not constitute an attempt to interfere with the constitutional processes of a member church - itself a 'cross-jurisdictional intervention'?

Presumably the issue did not take up the whole of the three-day meeting. What other matters were on its agenda? Were absentees able to vote by electronic means? When will its minutes be made public? (Wry, cynical laughter.)

There are no visible checks and balances on the executive power being accumulated by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion - and none are envisaged in the Covenant.


Whatever happens, in case of future communion-wide disputes,

these people (and their successors) are the ones to lobby:

• The Most Revd Rowan Williams ex-officio
• Canon Elizabeth Paver (Vice Chair, England), a lay canon of Sheffield Cathedral, a former member of the Panel of Chairs of the General Synod of the Church of England and chair of the Board of Mirfield Theological College.
• The Rt Revd Kumara Illangasinghe (Sri Lanka)
• The Rt Revd James Tengatenga (Chair, Province of Central Africa) (see here and here)
• Mrs Philippa Amable (West Africa)
• The Most Revd Dr Mouneer Anis (Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & the Middle East, resigned) Primate
• The Most Revd Dr Phillip Aspinal (Australia) Primate
• The Revd Professor Ian Douglas (TEC) a passionate educator and activist for the worldwide mission of God. A recognized leader in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, Professor Douglas is a member of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, was a member of the Design Group for the Lambeth Conference 2008, and member-elect of the Anglican Consultative Council as a priest representing The Episcopal Church.
• Dr Anthony Fitchett (Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia), a family doctor in Dunedin, New Zealand. He trained at Otago and worked as a house officer and registrar at Waikato Hospital. His involvement in the Anglican Church is at local, national and international levels. Dr Anthony became Lay Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral from 1996, was on the Dunedin Diocesan Trust Board from 2006 amongst many other things.
• Dato Stanley Isaacs (Province of South East Asia), a lawyer by profession. He is the Senior partner of law firm called ‘Isaacs & Davis’ in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He has been a member of the Diocesan Synod and Diocesan Standing Committee since 1980 and founding member of the Provincial Synod. Currently he is chairman of the Diocesan Properties Development Committee and Trustee of the Diocesan Investment Funds.
• The Most Revd Dr Katherine Jefferts Schori (TEC) Primate
• The Rt Revd Azad Marshall (Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & the Middle East) originally from Pakistan. Bishop Azad was Area Bishop of the Gulf from 1994 to 2007 and became the Bishop of Iran in 2007. He also is the Director of the Episcopal Inter Faith Center in Tehran, Iran.
• The Most Revd Dr Barry Morgan (Wales) Primate
• The Most Revd Henry Orombi (Uganda) Primate
• Rev Janet Trisk (Southern Africa)
• Ms Nomfundo Walesa (Southern Africa)

And, of course, the ACO staff - and all those (like the other Primates) who may have the ear of any of these people.


This list was taken from the Charity Commission website and from a press release - the biographical bits - from the last ACC meeting which identified the newly elected. It is odd that the Anglican Communion website does not prominently list the current members, the Trustees of the Communion. Perhaps they should include email / facebook / twitter links?

By the way, the site http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ seems to be a mirror site to http://www.aco.org/ - isn't that a neat symbol?


.

Accusations of homosexual support against the Central African Bishops

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION has received the article published below from Philip Chidembo putting the case for the Nolbert Kunonga faction in the Diocese of Harare, Zimbabwe. It reveals a heady mix of political interest, disputed court rulings and accusations of ‘homosexual’ support on the part of the Bishops of the Central African Province. In the interests of balance and openness we believe we should publish it.

North American conflicts imported into Africa?

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION prefaces the article by stating that our collective views are that:

• The Rt Rev’d Chad Gandiya of the Church of the Central African Province is the legitimate Bishop of Harare
• Evidence points both circumstantially and in practice to a regime of terror and intimidation against the priests and people of Dr Gandiya’s diocese carried out at the behest of ‘Archbishop’ Nolbert Kunonga with the support of the police and Robert Mugabe factions of the Zimbabwe government
• Court decisions instructing the sharing of church buildings remain valid
• The the accusation of ‘homosexual support’ by the bishops of the Central African Province is untrue and an attempt to discredit them and mask what is a power struggle between the interests of Kunonga and the Province of Central Africa
• This is an example of how the conflicts between North American Anglicans have been successfully and divisively exported into a socially conservative Africa
• Accusations of homosexuality are now regularly used to defame the character and good standing of individuals and churches in an arbitrary and inquisitorial style for political ends
• Perversely, the same technique now being used against them by Nolbert Kunonga was also used by Provincial bishops, under the oversight of the then Archbishop of Central Africa Bernard Malango, in an attempt to discredit the candidacy of the English, London based, Rev’d Dr. Nicholas Henderson as the elected Bishop of Lake Malawi

..............................................................................................................

Article from: Philip Chidembo (the items reproduced in bold are as in the original article)

May you please publicise this article on your website. It is good for people to see what’s on the other side.

ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF HARARE
PRESS STATEMENT: LEGAL ISSUES/HOMOSEXUALITY

We as the Diocese of Harare under the leadership of Bishop Nolbert Kunonga write to correct the information being given to the public by the Honourable Minister Mutsekwa in regards to the Anglican Church (the Church of the Province of Central Africa versus the Diocese of Harare) dispute. The Minister has misled the public and nation at large by the statements lie is making, which are misleading, misinforming and false. The dispute in the Anglican Church is not about politics or politicians, ZANU PF, MDC-T or MDC-M or government as a whole. It is purely a theological, doctrinal and a faith issue. The Church of the Province of Central Africa (C.P.C.A.) and the Diocese of Harare are divided because of difference in opinion on homosexuality.

The Honourable Minister has deliberately taken it upon himself to grossly misinform and mislead the public on judiciary facts in regard to this issue. There seems to be confusion in the Minister's mind, as he cannot separate political issues and theological issues.

The issue of homosexuality has ruptured the Anglican communion world wide and the Archbishop of Canterbury has admitted that the Church be run on a two structure system those who support homosexuality and those who are opposed to it. The Minister has illustrated that he lacks information in regard to developments within the Anglican Church.

He needs to be educated correctly so that lie does not react emotionally to issues outside his jurisdiction. It is very important for a public figure like Honourable Minister Mutsekwa to verify relevant information before rushing to conclusions of giving wrong directions. It also seems the Minister has his own personal vendetta against Bishop Kunonga. This is so because how on earth can he ignore several current orders from the courts and stick to the Makarau judgement, which is outdated and have been overtaken by other High Court Orders.

The behaviour of the Minister is saddening and we feel the Minister needs urgent counselling and healing for him to be able to see the truth. We hope the Government has suitable facilities for rehabilitation in such issues.

The Honourable Minister has chosen to grossly misinform and mislead the public and the whole country by speaking without verifying facts and evidence of court proceedings within the Anglican dispute. The Church of the Province of Central Africa (C.P.C.A.) is the one who took the Diocese of Harare to court and should abide by court rulings if they want to speak of the rule of law.

We are left to wonder whether it is an academic background problem or an intellectual problem within his mind, which fails to separate ministerial directives and judiciary rulings.

No one is being banished from worshipping but those who support homosexuals or indulge in this act are not welcome. Those who preach politics and denounce their own government are also not welcome as the Church is purely for worshipping without reservations.

For the record we would like to advise the Minister that the Makarau judgement he speaks volumes of, was suspended long back on 7 April 2008 and we find no reason why the minister is reviving it now. According to court records and the Attorney General's Office, the Makarau Judgement was suspended. We do not think the minister is now a member of the Judiciary bench and has ruled otherwise.

The Minister should not drag the Government politics and politicians into a church dispute. There have been many other denominations in dispute, but we have never heard of any Minister who has intervened. This clearly shows that Honourable Minister Mutsekwa is an interested party in this matter.

For the record we do hereby list all court proceeds as from January 2008 to date for public consumption.

1. On the 19th of January 2008, Judge President Rita Makarau gave a provisional order in case number HC 345/08, which gave both factions time sharing within the Church. We responded and made our condo nation Application on 19 March 2008, which was heard by Chief Justice Chidyausiku, in which he granted the issuance of the appeal out of time. Case number SC 17/2008.

On the 7th of April 2008, we appealed against J.P. Makarau's judgement - case number 72/2008, and our appeal was noted, automatically suspending J.P. Makarau's Provisional Order. Letter of undertaking was then sent to the High Court on 5 May 2008 as per court rules.

2. On 2 May 2008, Justice Guvava sitting in court upheld J.P. Makarau's order - case number HC 2259/08.
We subsequently appealed on 3 May 2008, case number SC 83/08. Again our notice of appeal was noted, thereby suspending J.P. Makarau's order to share churches.

3. On 3 April 2009, the Co-Ministers summoned us to the Home Affairs Ministry. Our letter of undertaking top ay costs had disappeared in the High Court under fraudulent circumstances. The Co-Ministers directed that we should revert back to J.P. Makarau's order until we give them proof that we actually appealed and undertook to pay costs.
We had copies of all the required papers but when we approached the Co-Ministers, they turned a deaf ear on us. We wrote manycorrespondents but to date they have never entertained us. To add salt to injury, the A.G.'s office even wrote a memo to the Co-Ministers on 23 April 2009 advising them that indeed there was an appeal and J.P. Makarau's judgement had been suspended but the Honourable Co-Ministers were adamant the churches should be shared and no one was going to change that.

4. On 24 July 2009, we went to Court case number HC 4327/08 same as case number HC 6544/07 for the courts to decide who was in control of the churches property. Justice Hlastwayo gave an order that Bishop Kunonga and his Board of Trustees were the custodians of the Diocesan Property movable or immovable. He also gave an interdict that no other Bishop is to be consecrated in the Diocese of Harare case number HC 2792/08.

The Gandiya Faction obtained a fraudulent notice of appeal, so as to go ahead and consecrate Gandiya.

On 26 August 2009, we made an Urgent Chamber Application to investigate on the merit of the purported Notice of Appeal - case number HC 3391/09. Justice Bhunu heard this matter on the 24th of September 2009 and we are still waiting judgement.

5. We made an application to the Supreme Court case number SC 180/09 for non-payment of costs by the Gandiya faction. Deputy Chief Justice Malaba heard this matter on the 4th of November 2009 and we are still waiting for judgement.

6. On 14 December 2009, the Gandiya faction approached the High Court, without our knowledge as an interested party in this matter and obtained a provisional order by consent by all parties being the police, Co-Ministers and Church of the Province of Central Africa Faction represented by Gandiya to revive J.P. Makarau's order and bar the police from doing their Constitutional mandate of maintaining law and order. They wanted chaos to prevail there by tarnishing the image of the government - case number HC 6281/09 under Justice Karwi.

7. On 19 December 2009, we approached the High Court to redress the anomaly caused by the Provisional order by consent granted by Justice Karwi - Case number HC 6451/09. Justice Hlatswayo granted a provisional order by consent from all parties involved being the police, Co-Ministers, the C. P. C. A. faction and the Diocese of Harare represented by Bishop Kunonga. This order suspended the Justice Karwi order 6281/07. Thus, all orders by the C. P. C. A. Faction have been suspended, legally, we are back to status quo - where there is one Bishop, Dr. Nolbert Kunonga, once service, by clergy, and laity loyal to him, one Diocese under his authority.

This being the case we saw it fit to highlight our plight as wolves are roaming around to devour us regardless of our legitimate legal position and standing.

Conclusion: Points in limine. The dispute in the Anglican Church is about homosexuality. The C. P. C. A. bishops openly support homosexuality and we will never share the same premises and place of worship. Homosexuality is an abomination as the Scriptures are against such practices. Morally, culturally and spiritually homosexuality is not permissible.

We would also like to hear from Honourable Mutsekwa which ruling he is referring to as being violated by our faction. The Minister should be worried about the Gandiya faction who is violating a provisional order barring them from ever referring to the Makarau judgement as it was appealed against on the 7th of April 2008. The Honourable Minister should follow court proceedings on a daily basis if he wants to be abreast of the current court rulings. He seems to be relying on outdated information supplied to him by those who have no current court orders.

As previously mentioned, we are not bound by ministerial resolutions when there are court orders. Honourable Mutsekwa should be advised as previously mentioned that the Makarau Judgement was suspended. He was even advised of same by the Attorney General's office. Honourable Minister speaks volume of rule of law which he himself is flouting willy nilly. He is acting on behalf of the Gandiya faction from whom he takes his orders. This is very clear even from a blind man's side. He is prepared to work with anyone who is opposed to ZANU PF as he stated in the Standard. He should not drag the Government and political parties into a church dispute. Why is he not concerned about the people who are going around breaking church properties.

................END..............

Want to have your say?

Comment below or

Visit our companion blogsite: http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

The coup has already occurred

One of the key objections to the Covenant was that it would lead to a concentration of power within the Communion and a centralising of decision making.

That doesn’t matter now. Concentration and centralisation have already happened: the coup has occurred and very people seem to have noticed.

(Some have, of course. See, from a couple of points on the spectrum, Mark Harris, Bishop Mouneer Anis, and the Anglican Communion Institute.)

The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion has become the executive body for the Communion and is in the process of arrogating more powers to itself. If the Covenant is passed it will become the governing body of the Anglican Communion.

How we got here.
1) Joint standing committees
From its beginning the Anglican Consultative Council has had a standing committee in order to conduct its business between meetings. This is a sensible and unexceptional arrangement for many organizations, not least an elected body that meets every 3 years.

In ACC-10 (Panama, 1996) joint meetings of the standing committees of the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting were noted as a ‘recent practice’. The hope, following a suggestion in the Virginia Report, was that the then Standing Committee of the ACC could be expanded ‘to allow an appropriate balance of bishops, clergy and laity, with consideration to age and gender’ [Resolution 6].

At ACC-11 (Dundee, 1999) and 12 (Hong Kong, 2002) the ACC had its standing committee, the Primates’ Meeting had theirs, and there were also joint meetings. Matters were referred either to the ACC standing committee or to the joint standing committee depending on the nature of the business.

In 2002 further constitutional revision was requested which was agreed at ACC-13 (Nottingham, 2005) [Resolution 4]. Five Primates were added ex officio to the membership of the ACC in a little class of their own and were appointed to the standing committee.

In constitutional terms this is quite misshapen. The joint standing committee is thus only partly accountable to each of its different parents and its members are elected by different mechanisms and for different terms (I’m guessing, since the Primates’ mechanisms are entirely opaque). Politically, however, it makes perfect sense to bring the key people of the three most active Instruments of Unity together formally.

Resolution 6 is indicative of the concern that members of the ACC must have had about their creation. They asked that the standing committee

circulate the agendas of Standing Committee meetings to all members of the
Council prior to meetings, and the minutes of the Standing Committee meetings to
all members of the Council as soon as possible following the meetings.

Only in this way could they possibly hope to keep any sort of watch on the activities of their runaway child.

Most recently, at ACC-14 (Kingston, 2009) the ACC asked for a quid pro quo for their largess in allowing Primates privileged access to their Council. They requested that ‘an equal number of non-Primatial members of the Standing Committee [should attend] as non voting participants in the Primates' Meeting.’ Thus the boundaries blur still further. [Resolution 38]

Furthermore, it would seem (resolution 39) that the ACC now has a new constitution which is operative, has had the assent of two-thirds of its members and yet has not been made public. If this is a straw in the wind it is a worrying indicator of the way the new communion will work.

This is why the title ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ does not appear in the resolutions of the ACC. But it was referred to by Bishop John Patterson in his concluding sermon:

Anglican polity has always held that it is bishops in synod, or bishops in council, that are able to make decisions that guide the life of the church locally. For the Communion, the Primates’ Meetings cannot do that, although we should be able to look to our Primates for wise guidance and theological insights, but in my view that is quite different from making binding decisions
from which the rest of the Church is excluded.
We have now moved to seeing what we have known as the Joint Standing Committee of the primates and the ACC become more simply the Standing Committee of the Anglican communion, possibly meeting more than once a year, with the right balance of Primates, clergy and laity represented. That is a significant advance in the tightening of our structures, a significant advance in helping the four ‘Instruments of Communion’ work more cohesively together, without taking anything away from any of those Instruments.

2) A charitable company
In 1978 the ACC was registered as a charitable trust in England (no. 276591). Between 1999 and 2009 discussions led to agreement that the ACC should also be a charitable company. At ACC-13 Memorandum and Articles for this new company were endorsed though not made public – then or now. [Resolution 3] The finances of the ACC have been transferred to this new company.

The detail of the rules is important (there has been dark discussion of a ‘secret’ constitution on some conservative sites). But there is a much more immediate and significant point. Trustees cannot be mandated by another body but must exercise their own discretion. Directors are legally responsible for the financial and other aspects of their company. They are autonomous.


and the point of this is ...
Thus is created the fifth instrument of unity of the Anglican Communion (if we forget, as everyone else apparently forgets, that this accolade was once formally given to Canon Law).

The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is legally constituted, controls the finances of the Communion (except, on this latter occasion, the costs of the Lambeth Conference), and is embedded in the Primates’ meeting and the ACC. It is governed by the law of England and Wales. It gives an account to Companies House and the Charity Commission.

No doubt it will also report to the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC. But, formally, this is now a courtesy. Neither of these bodies can instruct the SCAC and, if its members accepted such instruction, they would be at risk of breaching their duties as trustees and directors.


The effect of the Covenant
In this setting the Covenant takes on a new significance. The ACC has given all its powers (except those specifically reserved to the Council) to its standing committee (previous Constitution, Article 8). Presumably, though its procedural rules are not online, the same applies to the Primates’ Meeting.

The point and effect of the Covenant is now this: to turn the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion into a body which, whatever its origins, will have significant powers of governance in its own right – in fact, a whole new tranche of powers which do not currently exist.

The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion will thus become the regulator of relationships between Provinces. It will have the capacity to limit the degree of participation Provinces may have in the communion’s Instruments of Unity – and potentially also its commissions, working groups and other international bodies. All, that is, except one: invitations to the Lambeth Conference will remain in the personal gift of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

.

Bishop James Tengatenga, discontent in South Malawi • Still no bishop for Lake Malawi • Criticism of acting Dean, Bishop Albert Chama

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION reports

South Malawi: Clergy in the Diocese of South Malawi have protested against Bishop James Tengatenga’s requirement for Malawi Kwacha 7,000,000.00 ($48,000.00 - £30,000.00 - €34,000.00). This is for sabbatical study leave in the United States.

Bishop James Tengatenga presides in the United States

Tengatenga who is a frequent visitor to North America and who often travels worldwide in his role as Chair of the Anglican Consultative Council has challenged his clergy that he should be given his allowances or he will resign.

The clergy have responded with their intention to consult with the laity of the diocese.

Tengatenga has a history of conflict over funding having threatened previously to withhold sacramental rites such as confirmation if parishes do not meet their diocesan payments.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION observes that the laity in the Central African Province have developed an increasingly powerful voice in recent years. This has resulted in a number of protracted struggles with their traditionalist command structure bishops. The growth of easy access to communications such as mobile telephony and the internet is slowly democratising Church governance. We believe that this is a positive development.

Lake Malawi: Laity protesting against the election of the Venerable Francis Kaulanda as bishop have brought a Court Injunction preventing the bishops from ‘confirming’ Kaulanda’s position. This case was revisited in court on 21st January. Charles Wemba, lay spokesman, reports that he and others have been threatened with excommunication by the bishops. A ruling of the court is expected soon.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION observes that in the long-running saga of the Diocese of Lake Malawi the bishops have consistently attempted to bypass and overrule the laity. The only exception to this policy came in June 2007 when Bishop Trevor Mwamba of Botswana came close to bringing the parties together before himself being sacked as Dean of the Province by the then Archbishop Bernard Malango.

Acting Dean Albert Chama: African blogsite activity and comment shows increasing discontent with the provincial oversight of Bishop Albert Chama of Northern Zambia. Complaints and comments include:

• Lack of consultation with the laity
• An authoritarian and detached style of leadership
• Lack of personal and visible ‘on the ground’ involvement in Zimbabwe, especially in defence of and in solidarity with Bishop Chad Gandiya as he struggles to defend his diocese of Harare against renegade ‘Archbishop’ Nolbert Kunonga
• Allegations of ‘closeness’ to Nolbert Kunonga through his mentor and friend former Archbishop Bernard Malango

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION observes that the blogosphere is an unmonitored and unaccountable medium but Chama is inevitably vulnerable to such criticisms. They are likely to weigh against him when eventually all the diocesan sees are filled and an election takes place for the post of Archbishop of Central Africa. The future of this much-troubled Province will be determined by the style of whoever leads the Province. Albert Chama’s acting tenure as Dean over four years has been at best patchy and change may be preferable to ‘more of the same’.

Want to have your say?
Comment below or visit our companion blogsite:

http://anglican-information.blogspot.com