The Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) in Zimbabwe, one of the country’s largest Pentecostal denominations, is facing renewed internal tensions following a High Court application challenging the legitimacy of its current leadership.
Church members Daniel Mhlanga and Dennis Maposa have approached the High Court seeking the nullification of the May 2025 election that ushered in AFM president Dr Cossam Chiangwa, deputy president Reverend Amon Chinyemba, secretary-general Dr Nathan Nhira, and national administrator Shepherd Sebata.
The application, filed in Harare under case number HCH2288/26 on 26 May 2026, argues that the election process did not comply with constitutional provisions governing age eligibility for senior leadership positions.
At the heart of the dispute is a church constitutional clause that reportedly sets the maximum qualifying age for presidium candidates at 65 years. The applicants contend that this requirement was improperly altered before the election, allowing individuals who would otherwise have been ineligible to contest.
Court documents indicate that the matter stems from discussions held during Apostolic Council meetings in February 2025, where a proposal was presented to raise the age limit from 65 to 70 years. Supporters of the proposal reportedly cited changes in Zimbabwe’s retirement policies as justification for the adjustment.
However, the applicants argue that the council did not have the authority to implement such a change without following formal constitutional amendment procedures. They maintain that the church constitution requires a prescribed process, including notice and approval mechanisms, before any amendment can take effect.
As part of their application, Mhlanga and Maposa are asking the court to declare the February 2025 resolution invalid, restore the original age limit, and set aside elections conducted under the disputed provision. They are also seeking to invalidate decisions made by the current leadership since taking office.
Church leaders have previously maintained that no constitutional amendment took place, arguing instead that the Apostolic Council merely clarified and interpreted existing provisions. The applicants dispute this position, insisting that the constitutional language is straightforward and does not require interpretation.
Dr Chiangwa has acknowledged the existence of the legal challenge but has refrained from discussing the substance of the matter, noting that it is currently before the courts.
The case has generated considerable discussion among church members, with opinions divided over governance, constitutional adherence, leadership succession, and accountability within the denomination.
A ruling in favour of the applicants could result in fresh elections being held within a specified timeframe, potentially leading to changes in the church’s top leadership. Conversely, a dismissal of the application would leave the current administration in place and provide judicial support for its position.
Beyond the legal issues, the dispute has raised broader concerns about unity within the church. While some members see the court action as a necessary step to uphold constitutional principles, others believe such matters should be resolved internally through established church structures.
The outcome of the case is expected to have significant implications for the future direction of the AFM, with many members hoping that regardless of the verdict, efforts will be made to strengthen cohesion and preserve harmony within the church.
