Judge questions Synod’s Christianity

High Court judge Charles Mkandawire on Thursday admonished the CCAP Livingstonia Synod and members of the breakaway faction of Kanengo that what they were practising was not Christianity.

The judge said this in Lilongwe when he declared in his judgement that CCAP Livingstonia Synod are the rightful owners of the Kanengo congregation property in Lilongwe.

Mkandawire also asked the two parties to resolve their differences within the church structures, explaining that the courts should be used as the last resort.

Delivering judgement on the dispute over the property, the judge admonished the synod and members of the breakaway faction of Kanengo that what they were practising was not Christianity.

He pleaded for tolerance among the two factions, asking them to resolve the issues through the CCAP General Synod comprising synods from Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe and only then would the property issue come before the High Court for adjudication.

Said Mkandawire: “Do the leaders, the reverends and Christians of the CCAP Livingstonia Synod really believe in the teachings of the great shepherd Jesus Christ?

“If you cannot forgive each other, then I am questioning your Christianity. It is clear both sides are not tolerating each other. But now I am pushing it back to you to resolve this issue without seeing any splinter group.”

The wrangle between the Synod of Livingstonia and its congregation in Lilongwe came to a head when the synod resolved to suspend the Reverend Chimwemwe Mhango after he refused a transfer from Kanengo to Euthini in Mzimba because he was not consulted.

The contentious matter became ownership of the Kanengo church building, its contents and bank accounts which the synod wanted control over. However, some members of the church refused to hand them over.

The judge said the Livingstonia Synod constitution was founded on the cross-cutting issues of compassion, love, forgiveness and tolerance.

“Actually, any church that is not anchored on these cornerstones is not worth its salt,” Mkandawire said.

The court also questioned Mhango’s transfer, wondering if the synod took into account his extenuating circumstances before he was transferred from Kanengo to Ekwendeni and then Euthini.

But the judge had no kind words for Mhango either, saying: “As a man of God who has been sent to spread the word of God, does it really matter where evangelisation takes place? If the calling he took at Kanengo had conditions attached before he could be transferred, are those conditions set in stone?”

However, in his judgement, Mkandawire found that the Kanengo congregation property was acquired through the trustees of the synod and asked the aggrieved parties to lodge their complaints with the synod in Mzuzu.

“If any party is dissatisfied with the decision of the General Assembly, that is the most appropriate stage when a party can approach the High Court for adjudication on the property issues. The court, therefore, directs that the orders sought by the plaintiff are hereby granted,” he said.

In an interview after the judgement, lawyer for the Kanengo congregation, Zeros Matumba, maintained that his clients were the winners because they would continue to use the property as trusteeship was not ownership.

“The status quo remains. We are the victors because we are not vacating the premises. We have won. If there is an aggrieved party it should go to the General Assembly.

“The court could have said Kanengo congregants are evicted, but the court did not say that. The synod was saying the court should declare that the property should be surrendered but the court didn’t say that,” he said.

On his part, the synod lawyer, Victor Gondwe, said the property was vested in the trustees and they would take over management of the property. n