Selfish interests, bane of reconciliation in CAC —Pastor Akinosun

President of Christ Apostolic Church (CAC), Worldwide, Pastor Abraham Olukunle Akinosun, in this interview, speaks on the latest development on the unity of the church. Excerpts:

How do you hope to resolve the court cases involving the CAC?

There are not many court cases. The only remaining matter in court now is the so-called appeal against the judgment we obtained at the Federal High Court in Lagos. The persons sued in the civil suit instituted by the registered trustees and the General Executive Council of the church, had appealed against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos which adjudged the General Executive Council as the only authentic authority of the church. The criminal case, which they had hyped and which they were pursuing with zeal at the Federal High Court, Ibadan against some of our leaders, was decided recently. The criminal case was prosecuted by the Federal Government following a petition they wrote. The case had been into various courts since 2000. It was on April 11, 2017 that the matter was decided upon. The court upheld the no-case submission of our lawyer and discharged and acquitted the people accused falsely. On our part, we have withdrawn all cases instituted by us against them. The remaining appeal at the Court of Appeal in Lagos was initiated by the people who were originally sued and against whom the judgment was given. Unfortunately, those who took the case to the appeal court are now dead. Our brothers on the other side are trying to ask the court of appeal to substitute the dead litigant for new set of people with whom the church had no dispute, so that those people can continue with the case.

Many pastors claim to belong to the CAC family, but their conduct and tenets are different from that of the church. What plans do you have concerning this?

This is the main reason why we are very concerned about the crisis. Once we are able to unite the church, no one who is not a CAC adherent will be able to use the name of the church anyhow. That day will soon come by the grace of God. We have the authority to enforce compliance with the standard of the patriarchs who established the church and that we shall do very soon. The activities of some of these so-called independent CAC planters are very embarrassing. We cannot continue to watch them soiling the image of the church. Action will soon begin, I promise you.

What exactly is delaying the reconciliation of the church’s factions?

There are three broad reasons, but let me summarise it by saying it is the selfish interests of a few individuals. The crisis started in 1991 when the leaders of the church, namely: Pastor J. B. Orogun, the President then, Pastor A.A. Olutimehin, the then General Superintendent, Pastor and Prophet D. O. Babajide, the then General Evangelist and their executive Council suspended Pastor Adegoroye, Pastor N.E. Udofia, Prophet T.O. Obadare and Pastor Akintola and a few others from the church for what they referred to as anti-church activities. They were expected to repent and plead for forgiveness so that they could be re-instated. Indeed, they initially pleaded for forgiveness. But as their case was being considered, certain re-organisations were made in the church. The leaders, at the time, retired and appointed new set of leaders. However, instead of waiting for the new set of leaders to take action on their plea, some of those suspended felt that they were senior to the newly installed officers of the church and so, formed a parallel church administration. That was how it began. However, since the Federal High Court in Lagos declared on March 1, 2011 that the only authentic ruling body in the affairs of Christ Apostolic Church is the General Executive Council, we have told them they had been pardoned. All they had to do was to return to the fold of the mainstream church and they were assured of total reintegration and reconciliation.

Many of them promised to return to the CAC fold in 2012, but they reneged when some elements among them began to agitate for positions. Our position on this is that the crisis started when some people refused to accept discipline by the church leaders. Let us take care of that indiscipline first and reconcile. After total reconciliation, we shall give positions to those who merit them. This is the crux of the matter. If positions are allocated while the main issue that caused the crisis has not been settled, we would, unwittingly, have perpetuated the division. We may claim we have united but we have just institutionalised the division as those from the opposing side would begin to see the person appointed from their side as their own officer, it is to him alone that they would be relating. As far as we are concerned, all church officers could emerge from their side as long as we are one, we don’t care. But we must come together first before such scenario would be enacted.

Another reason was that many of them are afraid of retirement. Although the FRC law, which caused a mini stir in the RCCG, was suspended, the lesson from it has been learnt by all. You can’t remain in any position for life. While it is true that man must serve God till the end, you can’t occupy a position in the house of God for ever. Our own retirement age is even more generous. 75 years is a good retirement age. The Bible provided for the Levites to serve from the age of 20 and retire at the age of 50. After retirement, does it mean the Levite would be free to do any other work? No.

He remains a Levite and he is entitled to receive his portion of the tithe which the 11 Israelite tribes were compelled to pay to them. But we kept on assuring our brothers that they have nothing to fear.

The third reason why reconciliation has not been possible is the existence of some fifth columnists in their midst. These fifth columnists pose as people who want reconciliation on their own terms, but they are secretly working against anything that would end the crisis. The reason is that they are profiting from the extension of the crisis. Let me use the recent case decided at the Federal High Court in Ibadan as an example. The case started at the Magistrate Court in 2000. The court struck it out because it lacked merit in 2002. It was taken to the state High Court and was again struck out in 2005. Notwithstanding the striking out of the case, the petitioner got the case re-listed at the Federal High Court in 2007. At this stage, the names of the original accused persons were removed. The charges were further amended. Those remaining on the list were: Pastor E.H.L. Olusheye, Pastor Ayo Olabisi, Pastor Gideon Okegwemeh and a Corporate Affairs Commission official, Mr Akeem Muhammed.

The trial had been concluded twice. The first time it was concluded before Hon. Justice Shakarho. The prosecution had closed its case. But Hon. Justice Shakaro was transferred before the defence could open its defence. The trial had to start afresh before Hon. Justice Obaseki Adejumo. Again, the prosecution had concluded its case and the CAC Leaders’ Counsel filed a no-case submission. By the time the CAC Leaders’ lawyers filed a no-case submission, the prosecution had closed its case. Do you know that they again amended the charges after closing their case. So, the no-case submission made by the CAC lawyers did not take some counts in the amended charges into consideration and Justice Obaseki Adejumo had to over-rule our lawyer’s no-case submission because it did not address the amended charges, but she struck out two of the nine charges bordering on forgery. The ruling was appealed against by the CAC Leaders.

The Judge was again transferred and Hon. Justice Nathaniel Ayo Emmanuel took over the case. The prosecution again amended their charges and trial commenced before the judge. This time, the prosecution removed the name of Pastor E.H.L. Olusheye. Also, the name of Pastor Ayo Olabisi was removed following his death. The prosecution called two witnesses and closed their case. The CAC Leaders’ counsel, Mr. Michael Lana, filed a no-case submission, which was upheld by the Judge.

When this element I am talking about saw that the matter was likely going to be decided in favour of the accused persons, they wrote petition against the trial judge to the National Judicial Commission (NJC). They wanted the matter to be transferred to another judge. They know that once the case is re-assigned to another judge, it would be started afresh before the new judge. But the NJC investigated the petition and found it to be false. It was after the NJC gave its clearance that the trial judge gave his ruling.

One does not need to be a lawyer to know when a case has substance. You alleged that some people conspired to forge minutes of a meeting which they presented before the Corporate Affairs Commission to obtain certificate of the church’s incorporation. Mind you, they are not saying the certificate of incorporation is faulty or forged, but that the information they submitted to obtain the certificate, was forged. Yet the person accusing people was not in the said meeting, he is not an officer of the church. He doesn’t even have the original minutes so that it can be compared with the allegedly forged one and you want some people jailed for such a frivolous allegation. Which court of justice will do that? The elements which I am talking about are very strong among them. They are experts in the use of propaganda.