Awka Archbishop Challenges Six-Month Leave in Court as Anglican Dispute Deepens
Archbishop Alexander Ibezim has asked an Anambra State High Court to determine whether the Church of Nigeria followed its own constitutional procedures in directing him to proceed on six months’ compulsory leave from the Diocese of Awka.
The legal action adds a new layer to an internal Anglican dispute that has already triggered opposition from the Awka Diocesan Board and disagreement over who should supervise the diocese while the case continues.
Ibezim filed the originating summons on October 13 in Suit A/371/2026.
The defendants are the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, and the Dean of the Church, Archbishop Blessing Enyindah.
The originating summons asks the court to interpret specified provisions governing disciplinary proceedings against serving bishops and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
The filing does not, by itself, establish that the Church acted unlawfully.
Church says leave is administrative, not disciplinary
The Church of Nigeria’s position is that the six-month leave should not be treated as a disciplinary sanction.
In a directive issued by Ndukuba, the measure was described as an administrative step intended to allow investigation and reconciliation efforts to proceed.
Bishop Samuel Ezeofor was appointed to supervise the Diocese of Awka during the period.
That distinction is central to the dispute.
Ibezim’s court case raises questions about whether procedures provided in the Church’s governing rules should have been followed before the directive was issued.
The Church’s position is that the measure itself was administrative and should not automatically be characterised as punishment.
The court has not yet determined which interpretation is correct.
Awka diocesan board rejects directive
The Awka Diocesan Board has separately rejected both the compulsory-leave directive and Ezeofor’s appointment as supervising bishop.
The board has cited ongoing litigation and questioned the process through which the decisions were taken.
Those objections are the position of the diocesan leadership.
They are not findings of the Anambra State High Court.
The dispute has therefore developed along two connected tracks: an internal church disagreement over authority and procedure, and a court case seeking judicial interpretation of the rules governing the Church.
Why the constitutional question matters
At the centre of the case is a governance question with consequences beyond the individuals involved.
Religious organisations often operate under internal constitutions, canons and disciplinary structures.
When disputes reach civil courts, the key question can become whether decisions were taken in accordance with those governing rules and whether the court has a role in interpreting or enforcing them.
In this case, the court is being asked to consider what procedures apply when action is taken against a serving bishop.
It has not yet ruled that Ibezim was disciplined improperly.
It has also not ruled that the Church’s administrative explanation settles the dispute.
Those questions remain for judicial determination.
Leadership dispute continues in Awka
The disagreement has created uncertainty over the administration of the diocese.
The Church of Nigeria has appointed Ezeofor to supervise Awka during Ibezim’s leave.
The Awka Diocesan Board has rejected that arrangement.
That leaves the practical question of authority inside the diocese tied to both the Church’s internal structures and the outcome of the pending legal challenge.
The accountability questions
The immediate questions are:
What specific provisions of the Church constitution govern action against a serving bishop?
Does compulsory leave fall within those provisions?
What authority does the Primate have to impose administrative leave outside a disciplinary process?
And how will the diocese be governed while the dispute remains unresolved?
What is established
The verified position remains limited.
Ibezim has gone to court seeking interpretation of Church of Nigeria constitutional provisions after being directed to proceed on six months’ leave.
The Church says the directive is an administrative measure rather than a disciplinary sanction.
The Awka Diocesan Board has rejected the directive and the appointment of a supervising bishop.
The court has not yet determined whether the Church’s actions complied with its governing rules.
Until that happens, claims by either side about the legality or validity of the process remain arguments before the court, not established judicial findings.