Prime
Rev Okunya to appeal Court judgment on Kumi Diocese Bishop crisis
Rev Charles Okunya, was elected by the House of Bishops in November last year but his appointment was nullified over disparity in his age.
What you need to know:
- On Wednesday last week, the High Court Civil Division in Kampala dismissed a case in which Rev Charles Okunya was seeking redress after the house of Bishops under the province of Church of Uganda revoked his appointment as the second Bishop for Kumi Diocese on grounds of his age.
The stalemate surrounding issues of church of Uganda, Kumi diocese- is far from finished, following a 5-hour closed meeting held July 5 by the pro-Rev Charles Okunya camp that resolved to appeal against the court judgment delivered by Justice Musa Ssekaana.
Describing the court ruling as ‘‘very radical and biased,’’ the Vice Chairperson for the aggrieved Christians, Joseph Onange on Monday evening issued a 2-page statement confirming this development taken in unison.
Onange presided the meeting on behalf of the chairperson, Mzee Silvanus Isiagi, during a closed door session in which Rev Okunya and some notable area MPs attended.
Mr Onange, argues that the June 30 court ruling left Kumi Diocese Christians unsatisfied, and on that note, “We have come to an agreement to appeal against last week’s ruling,”
He said as Christians they sought all avenues to seek for former Archbishop Stanley Ntagali’s attention on the matter but all in vain- even during the era of current Archbishop Stephen K Mugalu.
‘‘It was never our wish to have this matter end in court. Those shepherds at the top are to blame. This whole thing is intrigue of the highest calibre,’’ he said.
According to Mr Onange, ‘‘the truth about the matter is that Rev Okunya, whose appointment was revoked after anonymous Christians raised a red flag over his age and an earlier relationship which was cleared by the parents to Dinah Amongin and Amongin herself, is not a born of 1975 as claimed.
He contends that the Rev Okunya was born 1970 and recently took a statutory oath regarding a change of his name.
‘‘We made efforts to bring his original birth certificate and baptism cards to the attention of the church, and the investigation committee but they looked the other side,’’ he said before he warned: “As Christians we shall recall back lands our forefathers gave to Church of Uganda because we have not been accorded a listening ear from those hitting at us for going to court,” he revealed.
Rev Okunya’s camp is now vowing to spearhead a secession of six archdeaconries from Kumi Diocese that they claim is using witchcraft in addressing Church matters.
Background
On Wednesday last week, the High Court Civil Division in Kampala dismissed a case in which Rev Charles Okunya was seeking redress after the house of Bishops under the province of Church of Uganda revoked his appointment as the second Bishop for Kumi Diocese on grounds of his age.
Rev Okunya on November 19, 2019 was duly elected as Bishop for Kumi diocese by the house of bishops after a thorough process of vetting and nomination.
Subsequently, on December 16, 2019, then Church of Uganda Archbishop, Stanley Ntagali wrote to Okunya raising alarm over an alleged ‘first’ relationship between him (Okunya) and a one- Dinah Amongin.
The said letter also informed Okunya that his December 2019 enthronement as the second Bishop of Kumi Diocese was postponed till further notice.
Rev Okunya asserts that Amongin and both her parents cleared him of the allegations and accordingly responded the Church of Uganda.
Days after, the House of Bishops sitting at Boroboro appointed a select committee of three bishops to investigate the matter and also present findings on Rev Okunya’s disputed age.
A February 1, 2020 report by the select committee made r reportedly guided the revoking of Rev Okunya’s election on grounds that he had falsified his age through a statutory declaration, and had not reached the age of 45 by the time he was elected.
Proceeding
In his 20 page judgment, Justice Musa Ssekaana, July 7, stated that: “The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s (Okunya) assertion that he was born on November 23, 1970 is fraudulent, given over eight documents from different government and education institutions where the plaintiff personally submitted information that he was born November 23, 1975. He fraudulently altered his year of birth to 1970 to meet the requirement for office of Bishop which at the time he had not attained.”
Rev Okunya through his lawyers of Alaka & company advocates sought that the decision of the House of Bishops revoking the election of the plaintiff as the second bishop of Kumi Diocese is illegal and unlawful.
Mr Ssekaana added that: ‘‘Okunya sought redress for declaration to pronounce the decision of the House of Bishop to barring his name from coming up as a future candidate as unlawful.’’
In his ruling last week, Justice Ssekaana, said: ‘‘Court is basically ignorant of the historical beliefs and reasoning behind it, hence they apply the judicial mind to check the veracity of faiths and beliefs as court has to understand that they are ill equipped to deal with religious beliefs and practices because of remoteness and lack of familiarity hence should only interfere when the practices seriously damage the constitutional fabric.’’
Limited jurisprudential competence, he says, prohibits courts from litigating religion since the judiciary lacks the ability to address religious questions.
“Courts generally have extracted the prohibition against litigating religion from the church autonomy doctrine which requires judicial deference to religious institutions Whenever the questions of discipline or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by church judicatories,”
