A bid to reconcile members of the Zion Christian Church from Botswana and their leader, Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane hit a snag on Sunday.
The members are challenging Bishop Lekganyane and the Zion Church’s decision to “fail to operate within the boundary of the church constitution.”
ZCC is cited as the First Respondent while Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane is cited as the Second Respondent.
The petitioners argue that since the constitution was adopted in 2009 the church has never ever held an Annual General meeting (AGM).
Terms of clause 16.1.1 of the party’s constitution demands that the AGM deal with the general affairs of the church including but not limited to presentation of the financial reports, chairman remarks, audit of the membership and other relevant matters.
The concerned members also accuse Bishop Lekganyane of failing to appoint a Minister since 2009 to run and head the Church in Botswana. This, they said, has caused the church to be in a state of crisis and uncertainty as clearly no one is accountable to lead it in Botswana.
In terms of the Constitution, Bishop Lekganyane appoints the Minister of the church while the power to appoint the Executive Council rests with the Minister. However, the members said since the church has never appointed anyone to this position it is unclear who then appointed the Executive Council which is currently in office.
According to court documents, on Sunday, Ndadi Law firm representing the concerned members of the Zion Church met with attorney Daniel Swabi, representing the Zion Church and Bishop Lekganyane in a bid to find an amicable solution.
Uyapo Ndadi of Ndadi law firm told the court that the meeting did not bear any fruits as both parties disagreed most of the time.
However both parties were in agreement that Bishop Lekganyane should have appointed a Minister of the Zion church in Botswana within six months but were not in agreement on time frames of other structures.
Swabi confirmed their disagreement before the court indicating that their differences led to the collapse of the negotiations.
Justice Michael Mothobi advised the two lawyers to write down what they agreed on as part of documentation to their negotiation. However attorney Swabi objected to such a suggestion saying at the moment he is not in position to commit to such documentation. Swabi was concerned about what will happen if the appointment is not done in six months.
Justice Mothobi postponed the case to April 8th for arguments.