The Full Story Behind the 1985 CAC Certificate Controversy

Follow

( 0 Followers )

X

Follow

E-mail : *

Follow Unfollow

The crisis surrounding the 1985 Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) certificate of the Christ Apostolic Church remains one of the longest-running and most controversial disputes in Nigerian Pentecostal history. What began as a disagreement over leadership succession after the death of a church president eventually evolved into a deep struggle over prophecy, authority, trusteeship, legality, governance, and the identity of one of Nigeria’s oldest indigenous Pentecostal churches.

Christ Apostolic Church traces its roots to the Aladura revival movement of the early twentieth century and rose to prominence through the ministry of Joseph Ayo Babalola during the 1930s revival era. The church became widely respected for its emphasis on prayer, holiness, prophecy, divine healing, and indigenous leadership independent of foreign missionary control. Over the decades, it grew into a major denomination with branches across Nigeria and internationally. However, like many large religious institutions, growth brought administrative pressure, leadership struggles, and disputes over governance.

The modern crisis began after the death of Elijah Titus Latunde in 1983. According to accounts promoted by the faction later associated with the Supreme Council, prophetic revelations from several respected church figures indicated that A.O.A. Olutimehin was divinely chosen to succeed Latunde as president of the church. Among those reportedly connected to these prophetic directions were Nelson Ekuh Udofia, T.O. Obadare, members of the Good Women Society, and other influential spiritual leaders within the denomination.

Despite these claims, the church leadership eventually chose Joseph Bolade Orogun as president. For many members, the decision was seen as a practical compromise intended to maintain peace and institutional stability. But for others, especially within the prophetic wing of the church, the choice represented a rejection of divine instruction. They believed the church had disobeyed God’s will, and that the divisions and crises that followed were spiritual consequences of that disobedience.

This disagreement gradually hardened into two competing interpretations of authority within the church. One side believed that prophetic revelation must remain supreme and that divine instruction should guide leadership decisions regardless of institutional convenience. The other side insisted that church governance must operate through constitutional order, administrative accountability, and established procedures. This ideological divide would shape every major conflict that followed.

The controversy intensified in 1985 during the presidency of Joseph Bolade Orogun, when the church obtained a new Certificate of Incorporation from Nigeria’s Corporate Affairs Commission, commonly referred to as the “1985 Certificate” or “Certificate No. 147.” The document legally represented the incorporated body of the church and listed official trustees. One of the trustees named on the certificate was Nelson Ekuh Udofia, who had served as General Secretary since 1969 and later became custodian of the certificate.

What appeared to be a routine legal document soon became the most powerful symbol in the crisis. To the faction aligned with the Supreme Council, the 1985 certificate represented the last authentic legal and spiritual identity of the united church. They argued that the document embodied the original divine structure of CAC and that any attempt to alter or replace it was illegitimate. In their view, Udofia’s custody of the certificate was not theft or personal ownership but faithful stewardship of the church’s authentic identity.

The opposing side, associated with the General Executive Council (GEC), accepted that the certificate itself may have been genuine but argued that possession of the document did not grant personal control over the church. Critics questioned whether Udofia acted transparently, obeyed the authority of President Orogun, or consulted other trustees in decisions involving the document. They argued that trusteeship is collective and accountable, not personal or factional. Concerns deepened when allegations emerged that the certificate had eventually been handed to Udofia’s son, who reportedly became active in publicly defending the family’s position. Critics saw this as an inappropriate personalization of church property and accused some leaders of treating institutional authority like inherited family ownership.

As tensions escalated, the church split into two major structures. The Supreme Council faction emphasized prophetic authority, spiritual restoration, and preservation of the 1985 certificate as the authentic legal identity of the church. The General Executive Council emphasized constitutional governance, administrative continuity, and institutional management. Over time, both factions established separate leadership systems, administrative structures, headquarters, and competing claims to legitimacy.

The dispute became even more controversial when questions arose over additional certificates allegedly obtained after 1985. According to the Supreme Council narrative, the original 1985 certificate remained the only authentic legal document, while later certificates issued in 1991, 1995, and 2021 were allegedly secured through improper means, including false affidavits and unauthorized trustee substitutions. The GEC side rejected these allegations, insisting that institutional continuity required the lawful replacement and updating of trustees as leaders died or administrative structures changed. To them, a global church could not remain permanently frozen under outdated trusteeship arrangements.

At the center of the crisis was a deeper struggle between charismatic spiritual authority and constitutional institutional order. One side believed prophetic revelation should guide the church above all else and that legal processes must submit to divine instruction. The other believed that while prophecy has a place in spiritual life, no church can survive long-term without accountability, shared governance, and transparent administration. The inability to reconcile these two visions prolonged the conflict for decades.

In recent years, the debate gained renewed attention through interventions by figures such as Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi, who published a detailed rebuttal to arguments presented by Ojo Emmanuel Ademola. Olujobi acknowledged that the 1985 certificate may indeed be authentic but argued that authenticity alone does not justify questionable stewardship or factional control. He insisted that the church must pursue “whole truth” rather than partisan truth and emphasized that trusteeship must remain transparent, collective, and accountable. He warned against using prophecy to excuse administrative failures or suspend constitutional order indefinitely.

Over more than four decades, numerous reconciliation efforts have been attempted by church elders, legal mediators, clergy, and political figures. Some reconciliation announcements initially appeared successful, only for new disagreements to emerge later. Deep mistrust, competing interpretations of history, legal disputes, emotional wounds, and fears of losing legitimacy have repeatedly undermined unity efforts. Entire generations of members have grown up within divided church structures, while both factions continue to claim they represent the authentic continuation of CAC.

The controversy has affected church administration, finances, property ownership, ministerial recognition, international branches, and the spiritual lives of ordinary worshippers. What makes the dispute especially significant is that Christ Apostolic Church is not merely another local congregation but one of Africa’s most historically important indigenous Pentecostal movements. The battle over the 1985 certificate therefore became symbolic of larger questions about who defines church identity, how spiritual authority should function, and whether prophecy can override institutional governance.

Ultimately, the 1985 CAC certificate controversy is not simply about a legal document stored in a church office. It is about competing visions of authority, legitimacy, stewardship, governance, divine order, and institutional survival. The debate reflects broader tensions faced by many religious organizations worldwide: how to preserve spiritual conviction without undermining accountability, and how to protect institutional order without suppressing deeply held beliefs about divine guidance. More than forty years later, the full story remains contested, with each faction holding its own interpretation of history, legality, and spiritual truth.