AFM faces another split

One of Zimbabwe's largest Pentecostal denominations, the Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) in Zimbabwe, is facing a critical leadership and governance test as a High Court challenge threatens to overturn the election of its top leadership and reshape the future of the church.

The legal challenge, filed by church members Daniel Mhlanga and Dennis Maposa, seeks to nullify the election of AFM president Dr Cossam Chiangwa, deputy president Reverend Amon Chinyemba, secretary-general Dr Nathan Nhira and national administrator Shepherd Sebata. The applicants argue that the election process violated constitutional provisions governing age limits for candidates seeking presidium positions.

The matter was filed at the High Court in Harare on May 26, 2026, under case number HCH2288/26.

At the centre of the dispute is a constitutional provision that allegedly restricts eligibility for the church's highest offices to individuals aged 65 years and below. Mhlanga and Maposa contend that church leaders unlawfully altered this requirement ahead of the May 2025 elections, allowing candidates who would otherwise have been ineligible to contest.

According to court documents, the controversy arose from meetings of the Apostolic Council held in February 2025, where a proposal was introduced to increase the maximum qualifying age for presidential candidates from 65 to 70 years. The proposal was reportedly justified by changes to Zimbabwe's public service retirement age framework.

However, the applicants argue that the Apostolic Council lacked the authority to make such a change without following the constitutional amendment procedures outlined in the church's governing document. They maintain that any amendment required formal notice and approval through a prescribed voting process, which they allege did not take place.

As a result, the applicants are seeking a declaration that the February 2025 resolution was unconstitutional and invalid. They want the original age limit reinstated and all elections conducted under the disputed provisions set aside.

The application further seeks to nullify decisions and resolutions made by the current leadership since taking office in May 2025 and calls for fresh elections to be held within 90 days.

In previous proceedings related to the matter, church leaders have argued that the Apostolic Council did not amend the constitution but merely exercised its authority to interpret provisions that required clarification. The applicants reject this position, insisting that the constitutional wording is clear and does not require interpretation.

Dr Chiangwa has acknowledged the existence of the court proceedings but declined to comment on the substance of the case, citing the principle that matters before the courts should not be publicly debated while litigation is ongoing.

The case has generated considerable debate within the church and among observers, raising broader questions about governance, constitutional compliance, accountability and leadership succession within one of Zimbabwe's most influential religious organisations.

Should the court rule in favour of the applicants, AFM could be compelled to conduct fresh elections for its top offices, potentially ushering in a new leadership structure. A dismissal of the application would leave the current leadership in place with judicial affirmation of its position.

Beyond the legal arguments, the dispute has also highlighted concerns about unity within the church. While some members view the court action as a legitimate effort to uphold constitutional principles and strengthen accountability, others believe internal disagreements should be resolved through church structures rather than secular courts.

The matter has also reignited debate over biblical teachings on resolving disputes among believers, with some arguing that the courts remain necessary where constitutional and legal rights are involved.

As AFM members await the court's determination, many believe the long-term challenge extends beyond the legal outcome. Observers note that while a court ruling may settle questions of legality, restoring trust and unity within the church may require dialogue, reconciliation and a shared commitment to the institution's future.

For now, the denomination remains in a period of uncertainty as it awaits a judgment that could have significant implications for its leadership, governance and direction in the years ahead.