Tendai Muererwa
Harare – The Apostolic Faith Mission of Zimbabwe (AFM) has been plunged into a leadership crisis after the High Court nullified the church’s May 2025 elections, ruling that the process was conducted using an unlawfully altered age limit.
High Court Judge Justice Tawanda Chitapi ordered the church to hold fresh elections within 30 days for the positions of president, deputy president general secretary and national administrator. The ruling follows an application by church members Daniel Mhlanga and Dennis Maposa, who challenged the election of Reverend Dr Cossam Chiangwa, Reverend Amon Chinyemba, Dr Nathan Nhira and Shepherd Sebata to the four positions.
The dispute centred on the church constitution, which provides that candidates for the presidium must be aged between 50 and 65 years at the time of election. The applicants argued that the National Apostolic Council unlawfully increased the upper age limit to 70 during a meeting held in February 2025, paving the way for candidates who had already exceeded the constitutional limit to contest.
According to the court papers, the proposed change was introduced by Chiangwa at the Apostolic Council meeting at Mufaro Conference Centre in Mushagashe, Masvingo. It followed an earlier discussion in which the proposal reportedly faced resistance from some members. Nineteen members voted on the motion, with 12 supporting it, seven opposing it and six abstaining.
The applicants maintained that the council could not amend the constitution through such a resolution. They pointed to Clause 13.6, which requires proposed constitutional amendments to undergo a prescribed process involving notice, consultation with provincial structures and approval by the required majority at a National Workers Council meeting.
Justice Chitapi agreed that the procedure had not been followed and declared the February resolution increasing the age limit unlawful and without legal effect. The court consequently reaffirmed 65 as the applicable maximum age for candidates.
The ruling means Chiangwa, Chinyemba and Nhira cannot contest the fresh election because they had exceeded the constitutional age limit when the disputed election was held. The court further ordered that the new poll must be conducted under the constitutional provisions and election guidelines that applied before the disputed alteration.
The applicants also challenged the validity of the church’s opposition papers after their lawyer Makorokotera, raised questions over the commissioning of an affidavit sworn by Chiangwa. The respondents, represented by Obey Shava argued that the affidavit had been properly executed.
Justice Chitapi found that the date on the affidavit had been inserted by the deponent rather than endorsed by the Commissioner of Oaths as required. The respondents’ opposing papers were therefore struck off, leaving the application effectively unopposed.
The consequences of the judgment extend beyond the four leadership positions. The court ordered that major actions, decisions and resolutions taken by the disputed presidium since the May 2025 election be nullified including the controversial provincial delimitation exercises.
To ensure that the church continues functioning while preparations for the fresh poll are made, an interim committee of five former overseers must be elected within 48 hours. The temporary body will handle administration and election preparations but will not be permitted to make policy decisions.
Nhira was directed to convene an Apostolic Council meeting to facilitate the formation of the interim committee. Its mandate will end once a new leadership is elected or after 30 days, whichever comes first.
The legal challenge has its roots in the AFM’s internal history, including a 2018 split that resulted in one faction retaining what it described as the church’s original, unamended constitution. That document became central to the applicants’ argument that the 65-year limit remained legally binding.
The applicants also relied on an April 2024 election guidelines manual issued by Dr Chiangwa, which had itself stated that presidential candidates had to be no older than 65 at the point of election. They argued that the subsequent attempt to raise the limit could not lawfully override the constitution without following its amendment provisions.
Dr Chiangwa has acknowledged the judgment but disputed the characterisation that the church breached its constitution. He said the ruling resulted from a default judgment arising from a technical issue concerning the court papers and confirmed that the church had pursued remedies available to it.
He declined to comment further on the substance of the dispute, citing the fact that the matter remains before the courts. Nhira similarly indicated that the church would issue a formal statement after internal consultations. The judgment now leaves the AFM facing a compressed timetable to reorganise its leadership, establish an interim administration and conduct fresh elections under the 65-year age requirement.
The case has also raised broader questions about governance within religious institutions, particularly the extent to which internal bodies can interpret or alter constitutional provisions governing leadership succession.
For the AFM, the immediate challenge is no longer simply defending the legitimacy of the 2025 election, but ensuring that the next leadership contest is conducted strictly within the constitutional framework reaffirmed by the High Court.
