AFM Zimbabwe Presidium Declared Unlawful by High Court

The High Court has declared the Apostolic Faith Mission of Zimbabwe (AFM) presidium led by Reverend Dr Cossam Chiangwa unlawful after nullifying the church’s May 3, 2025 leadership elections and ordering fresh polls within 30 days.

High Court Judge Justice Tawanda Chitapi ruled that the church’s National Apostolic Council acted outside its powers when it increased the constitutional age limit for candidates from 65 to 70 years. The change allowed candidates who were above the existing constitutional age limit to participate in the election.

Dr Chiangwa was elected president, while Reverend Amon Chinyemba became deputy president, Dr Nathan Nhira was elected general secretary and Mr Shepherd Sebata became national administrator.

The legal dispute followed a February 8, 2025 meeting of the National Apostolic Council held at Mufaro Conference Centre in Mushagashe, Masvingo. During the meeting, members resolved to increase the maximum age for candidates from 65 to 70 years.

Justice Chitapi found that the council did not have the authority to amend Clause 14.2.1 of the AFM constitution through the process it used. The clause provides that candidates for the church’s top offices must not be older than 65 years at the time of election.

The case was brought by church members Daniel Mhlanga and Dennis Maposa under Case Number HCH2288/26. They sought a declaratory order declaring the May 2025 election invalid on the grounds that the constitutional amendment allowing older candidates was unlawful.

The applicants also sought an order preventing the affected leaders from contesting any fresh election and asked the court to set aside decisions made by the presidium since its election.

In his ruling, Justice Chitapi ordered AFM to conduct fresh elections for the positions of president, deputy president, general secretary and national administrator within 30 days.

“First respondent shall conduct a fresh election within 30 days of this order to fill the positions of president, deputy president, general secretary and national administrator,” the judge ruled.

The court directed that the fresh election must be conducted in accordance with the AFM constitution and the second respondent’s memorandum of April 12, 2024.

Justice Chitapi further ruled that Dr Chiangwa, Reverend Chinyemba and Dr Nhira would not be eligible to contest the fresh election. Only candidates who were qualified to stand for election as of May 3, 2025 would be eligible.

The ruling also nullified major actions, decisions and resolutions made by the leadership after May 3, 2025. Among the decisions affected were the church’s provincial delimitation exercises.

To maintain the church’s administration while preparations for the new election are made, the court ordered AFM to establish an interim committee made up of five former overseers within 48 hours of the judgment.

The committee’s responsibilities are limited to administrative duties and preparations for the fresh election. It is not permitted to make policy decisions concerning the affairs of AFM.

“The interim committee shall not be allowed to make policy decisions concerning the affairs of the first respondent,” Justice Chitapi said.

The judge also directed Dr Nhira to convene an Apostolic Council meeting to facilitate the election of the interim committee. The committee will cease to exist once new leadership is elected or after 30 days, whichever occurs first.

Dr Chiangwa confirmed the High Court ruling on Wednesday but disputed the suggestion that AFM had breached its constitution.

“The High Court has not found any constitutional breaches by AFMoZ. The correct position is that the matter fell on a default judgment owing to a technicality with the court papers,” he said.

Dr Chiangwa said the church had used remedies available through the courts and was awaiting a decision. He said the matter was sub judice and therefore could not be discussed further.

Dr Nhira, who was ordered to convene the Apostolic Council meeting within 48 hours, said the church would issue a formal statement after a meeting.

“At the moment I am in a meeting and we shall issue a statement after the meeting. Since I now have your WhatsApp number, I will send you the statement,” he said.

The judgment also dealt with a preliminary legal dispute over the validity of the respondents’ opposing affidavit. The applicants’ lawyer, Mr C Makorokotera, argued that the affidavit sworn by Dr Chiangwa had not been properly commissioned because the date had been inserted by the deponent instead of the Commissioner of Oaths.

Representing the respondents, lawyer Mr Obey Shava argued that there was nothing irregular about the procedure and referred the court to provisions of the Justices of Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act.

Justice Chitapi rejected the argument and held that the legal requirements required the commissioner to administer the oath and endorse the date at the time the oath was administered.

“The commissioner must also endorse the date on which the oath was administered, and those acts must occur contemporaneously,” the judgment states.

The court found that because the date had been inserted by the deponent, the authenticity of the affidavit could not be satisfactorily established. The respondents’ opposing papers were consequently struck off the record, leaving the application effectively unopposed.

After dealing with the preliminary issue, Justice Chitapi considered the substantive application and declared the February 8 resolution increasing the age limit from 65 to 70 years unlawful and without legal effect.

The court reaffirmed that the 65-year age limit contained in Clause 14.2.1 of the AFM constitution remains binding.

As a result, the May 3, 2025 election of Dr Chiangwa, Reverend Chinyemba, Dr Nhira and Mr Sebata was declared unlawful, null and void.

The four respondents were also ordered to jointly pay the applicants’ legal costs on the higher legal practitioner-client scale.

The ruling means AFM must now organise another election for its four top offices within the period set by the High Court, while the interim committee handles limited administrative responsibilities during the transition.