By our Reporter
Most Rev. Alexander Chibuzo Ibezim, Archbishop of the Province of the Niger and Bishop of Awka Diocese, has approached the Anambra State High Court to challenge the decision of the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, Most Rev. Henry C. Ndukuba, directing him to proceed on a six-month compulsory leave.
The legal action comes a day after Ndukuba issued the directive, which was contained in a letter dated October 13, 2026. The leave is for an initial period of six months, subject to review.
In the letter, the Primate cited Section 29(1) of Chapter V of the Church of Nigeria’s Constitution and Canons, 2020, as the basis for his supervisory authority. He reportedly described the leave as an administrative measure to allow an impartial inquiry into issues affecting the diocese, rather than a disciplinary sanction.
Ndukuba also appointed the Bishop of Aguata Diocese, Rt. Rev. Samuel Ezeofor, as Supervising Bishop of Awka and Coordinating Bishop of the Province of the Niger. Ibezim was directed not to officiate at any church activities during the period.
Although the Primate’s letter reportedly did not specify the issues prompting the decision, the controversy has been linked in media reports to allegations that Ibezim sold church lands valued at more than ₦2 billion without authorisation.
The allegations reportedly led to a petition submitted to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s Enugu Zonal Directorate on July 28 by Chief G. Tagbo (SAN), on behalf of a member of St. Faith Cathedral, Awka. Reports also indicated that an attempt to arrest the Archbishop was restrained by an order of the Anambra State High Court presided over by Justice F. I. Aniukwu.
In his suit, numbered A/371/2026 and dated October 13, Ibezim is seeking an order restraining Ndukuba and the Dean of the Church of Nigeria, Most Rev. Blessing Enyindah, from suspending, removing or compulsorily retiring him without following due process.
The Archbishop is asking the court to determine whether disciplinary measures can be imposed against him without strict compliance with Sections 55, 75 and 76, as well as Canon XVI of the Church’s Constitution and Canons.
Ibezim’s central argument is that no charge has been brought against him and no trial has taken place. He contends that Canon XVI requires at least one of the offences listed under the church’s disciplinary provisions to be established before a bishop can be sanctioned.
The listed offences reportedly include felony, sexual immorality, conduct capable of causing scandal, heresy, schism, violation of the church’s Constitution, disobedience, neglect of duties and membership of a secret cult.
The court action places the church’s administrative authority and disciplinary procedures at the centre of the dispute, particularly whether the compulsory leave can be maintained without following the formal process for disciplining a serving bishop.
The development has further intensified the leadership crisis within the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, as the court is asked to examine the legality of the actions taken against the Archbishop.
The outcome of the case could have implications for the relationship between the church’s internal governance procedures and the recourse available to its members and leaders through the civil courts.
