Back to Index

The trial of two bishops: The case against Zimbabwe's Anglican bishop
Bob Stumbles, Chancellor of the Anglican diocese of Harare
March 08, 2006

Download this document
- Word 97 version (42KB)
- Acrobat PDF version (60KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

Bishop Kunonga's trial
Six months of official ecclesiastical silence have elapsed since the abrupt adjournment of the trial against the Right Rev. Nolbert Kunonga, Bishop of Harare, accused on 38 different counts by 90 people in his congregation. The Honourable Justice James Kalaile SC of Malawi, announced in open court on the second day of the trial that he had decided to stand down as trial judge and would contact The Most Reverend Bernard Malango, who is both bishop of a diocese in Malawi, and archbishop of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa, to appoint another judge. Six months of perceived prevarication have dragged by with no official answer to letters asking the archbishop when the trial would continue.

One count against Bishop Kunonga is that, without lawful authority from the diocesan trustees, he issued an urgent interdict in the Civil Division of the Magistrates Court personally to restrain the duly elected churchwardens and members of the church council of the Cathedral of St Mary's and All Saints from carrying out their normal duties and to restrain a commercial bank from giving access to and acting on the legitimate instructions of the council in respect of the cathedral account.

The bishop had refused to recognise the lawful election of the church council at a properly constituted AGM and was determined to prevent the members from carrying out their lawful duties in terms of the Acts (laws) of the diocese. He lost the case and was ordered to pay the legal costs of the respondents (council and bank).

Archbishop Malango breaks silence
That silence has now been broken; not by direct communication to the court officials, but obliquely through the Press. A report in The Herald, Zimbabwe, and "Pravda", Russia, both published on December 23, 2005, stated the archbishop had reached a decision. Surprisingly, contrary to normal procedure, neither the archbishop nor the provincial secretary have officially notified the "decision"to the registrar of the province who acts as registrar of the court, or the prosecutor of the trial, who was appointed by the archbishop.

It is only through the public media that over 90 indigenous complainants and others, like the provincial registrar and the prosecutor, have read that Archbishop Malango apparently said he will not after all appoint another judge to try Bishop Kunonga but will rule on the matter himself, based on a copy of a report from his own officials. (Who these are is not disclosed). Pravda quoted officials at the Harare diocese office as saying Archbishop Malango of Zambia (sic) informed church leaders (who these are is not stated) throughout the province that the case against Bishop Kunonga has been dropped. "The matter is closed and cannot be revived," claimed Archbishop Malango in a letter dispatched to the region's 12 bishops on December, 19, 2005, according to the media.

Reports say this letter warned S "all persons interested in bringing charges of this nature against any bishop of the province (are) S to ensure that they do not raise purely administrative issues masked as canonical offences." This veiled threat against the persons whose very complaints the archbishop once recognised as triable, is ill founded and misleading. Canon 24 of the provincial laws does not make any distinction whatsoever between "canonical offences" and "purely administrative offences"in describing the various offences a bishop may be accused of.

Time to speak out
In view of the time lapse and the stance adopted by the archbishop the time has come to speak out against what is turning out to be a travesty of justice. Appropriate facts and comments must be spelt out to eradicate misconceptions and to indicate where the laws of the church are being ignored. Being a servant of the church as chancellor of the Anglican diocese of Harare and deputy chancellor of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa, covering Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, I believe that, at the very least, I have a moral obligation to draw attention to where these laws have been cast aside.

Archbishop exceeds his authority
First and foremost what the archbishop has said and done, if correctly reported, is a violation of the canons (laws) of the province and he has exceeded his authority.

For the archbishop to make the reported unilateral decision that, "as far as the case against Bishop Nolbert Kunonga is concerned, the matter is closed and cannot be revived," is in direct contravention of the laws of evidence, the laws of the church and natural justice. It is submitted that his ruling is null and void and that the archbishop has not fulfilled his lawful obligation as holder of that office.

He has no right to abolish an ecclesiastical court which he himself has convened and which has already commenced proceedings. Neither the archbishop nor the duly constituted court has yet actually heard evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses.

Consequently, neither can argue they are in a position to make a fully considered and objective judgment. The causes between the parties are still to be heard in an open court and judged righteously, impartially, fairly and justly. This will give the complainants the opportunity to give evidence and the bishop the opportunity to defend himself against the charges made. Thechurch laws protect a person from being judged before he or she has been heard so that the court can first find out what that person has done.

Download full document

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP