…DISOBEDIENCE CANNOT BE CLOAKED IN WORSHIP
The attention of the UNICAL Chapel of Redemption Board of Trustees has been drawn to a publication titled “Open-Air Service of UNICAL Chapel of Redemption Held Despite Closure,” which appears to present Sunday’s gathering by supporters of the dismissed former Chaplain, Rev. Dr. Joseph Ushie, as an act of faith in the face of alleged hostility by the University Management.
That narrative, however, leaves out a critical fact: the Chapel was not closed to stop anyone from worshipping God. It was closed following a serious security situation that prompted the intervention of the Cross River State Police Command, amid fears that the escalating confrontation between rival factions could degenerate into violence and bloodshed. The distinction is important.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of Operations, DCP Godwin Etim, ordered the closure after a tense and rowdy situation at the Chapel. He directed everyone to leave the premises and warned that anyone found within the locked Chapel would be treated as a trespasser and dealt with according to the law.
He also summoned representatives of the contending factions for dialogue, with the stated objective of examining the issues and finding a peaceful resolution.
Against this background, the decision by supporters of the dismissed former Chaplain to proceed with an open-air service within the University environment the following Sunday deserves to be examined beyond the emotional language of persecution and religious freedom.
THE ISSUE IS NOT THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP
Nobody is questioning the right of anyone to worship God. The issue is whether that right can be exercised in deliberate disregard of a security directive issued to prevent a possible breakdown of law and order.
When a competent security authority, faced with a volatile situation, directs parties to vacate a facility to prevent violence, the responsible response is restraint. It is not to relocate the disputed activity to another part of the same institution and present the action as a victory over the authorities.
Worship does not confer immunity from lawful directives. A religious gathering does not automatically become lawful simply because it is described as a service to God. As a matter of fact, disregard to lawful directive is akeen to rebellion. In
1 Samuel 15:23, the Bible described rebellion as witchcraft.
THE POLICE INTERVENTION WAS ABOUT SECURITY, NOT PERSECUTION
It is misleading to suggest that the closure of the UNICAL Chapel of Redemption was simply an act of hostility by agents of the University Management. The immediate security intervention came from the Cross River State Police Command.
The circumstances preceding the closure are already known: a leadership dispute had produced rival positions within the Chapel, and the situation reportedly became tense and rowdy when supporters of Rev. Dr. Ushie returned to the Chapel with him. The police intervention was therefore preventive.
DCP Godwin Etim reportedly made it clear that the objective was to prevent loss of lives and property and violence of any kind.
That is the responsibility of a security agency. So calling a security intervention “persecution” does not make it persecution. If the police had credible concerns about possible violence, then every responsible person involved should have been interested in preventing such violence rather than testing the limits of the directive.
A SECURITY DIRECTIVE CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY CHANGING LOCATION
One of the most troubling aspects of the reported open-air service is that it was held within another part of the University environment, reportedly around the Fire Service Department.
That raises a fundamental question.
If the police ordered the closure of the Chapel because of the danger of confrontation between opposing factions, does moving the congregation outside the Chapel automatically eliminate the security concerns? Obviously not.
The Fire Service Department is part of the University environment and remains subject to the authority and administrative control of the University. Changing the location does not change the circumstances that necessitated the security intervention.
A security directive cannot be circumvented merely by moving a gathering from one University facility to another.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR HAS A DUTY TO MAINTAIN PEACE
The Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Offiong Efanga Offiong, has a responsibility to protect lives and property and maintain peace and order within the University environment. That responsibility becomes even more important when a dispute involving a University-based religious body has reached a point where the police have warned of possible violence.
The Vice-Chancellor cannot be expected to fold his arms while rival groups mobilise supporters and challenge one another over control and leadership of the Chapel. His duty is not to take sides in a factional contest. His duty is to ensure that the University remains safe, peaceful and conducive for teaching, learning, research and other legitimate activities.
Any action taken to prevent violence should therefore be understood within that context.
THE FORMER CHAPLAIN’S SUPPORTERS MUST RESPECT THE BOUNDARIES OF LAWFUL REDRESS
Supporters of Rev. Dr. Joseph Ushie may have grievances. They may disagree with the circumstances surrounding his removal or with the current arrangement in the Chapel. They are entitled to seek redress.
But there is a difference between seeking justice and resorting to self-help.
If they believe that the constitution of the Chapel has been violated, they should pursue the matter through the appropriate constitutional, administrative or judicial channels.
They cannot determine for themselves which decisions of security authorities should be obeyed and which should be ignored.
No faction in a disputed institution has the right to become a law unto itself.
CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT SANCTIFY DEFIANCE
There is also a deeper question for those who claim to be acting in defence of the Christian faith.
Christianity teaches peace. It teaches restraint. It teaches respect for constituted authority. It teaches believers to pursue reconciliation rather than confrontation.
Therefore, when a security authority warns that a gathering could lead to violence and orders parties to vacate a premises, deliberately proceeding with a gathering in defiance of that directive raises legitimate questions about the message being sent.
God does not need disorder to defend His Church. Neither does genuine worship require the deliberate provocation of institutional or security authorities. There is nothing inherently wrong with praying in the open air. The problem arises when the open-air gathering becomes a means of demonstrating that a particular group will continue its activities regardless of a security directive. That is where worship risks becoming a cloak for defiance.
THE DCP DID MORE THAN CLOSE THE CHAPEL
It is important not to lose sight of what happened after the police intervention. The DCP did not merely shut the Chapel and walk away. He invited representatives of the two factions for dialogue. That is significant.
The police intervention was therefore both preventive and conciliatory. The intention was not simply to deny anyone access to the Chapel but to create an atmosphere in which the contending sides could sit down and address the issues without the threat of physical confrontation.
That opportunity should be embraced. The way forward is not another gathering designed to test the authority of the police or University Management. The way forward is dialogue.
NO ONE SHOULD MISTAKE RESTRAINT FOR WEAKNESS
The University Management’s decision to prioritise peace and security should not be interpreted as weakness. A responsible institution must act before violence occurs, not after lives have been lost.
It would be irresponsible for the University authorities to knowingly allow a volatile situation to continue simply because the parties involved describe their activities as religious. Prevention is better than reaction.
The University of Calabar is home to thousands of students, staff and visitors. Its environment must not be allowed to become an arena for factional confrontation. The interest of the larger University community must come before the interests of any particular faction.
THE CHAPEL NEEDS PEACE, NOT ANOTHER FLASHPOINT
The leadership crisis within the Unical Chapel of Redemption has gone on for too long. Every additional confrontation deepens the division. Every provocative gathering makes reconciliation more difficult. Every deliberate disregard of a security directive creates a dangerous precedent.
What is required now is not another contest of strength but a genuine search for peace.
Those who believe they have been wronged should pursue lawful remedies. Those who are currently recognised within the Chapel structure should equally demonstrate restraint. And the University Management should continue to exercise its authority responsibly, fairly and transparently.
CONCLUSION
The reported open-air service may have been presented as an expression of faith. But faith cannot be used to justify actions capable of undermining public safety.
Nobody is stopping anyone from worshipping God. What must not be encouraged is the deliberate use of worship as a vehicle for disregarding a security directive issued to prevent violence. The right to worship is important. So is the right of every student, staff member and visitor to a safe and peaceful University environment. Both rights can coexist but only when there is respect for lawful authority and a commitment to peace.
The message should therefore be clear: Worship God, yes. Seek justice, yes. Defend your rights, yes. But do not mistake defiance for faith, provocation for courage, or disregard for authority for religious conviction.
The University needs peace. The Chapel needs peace. The congregation needs peace. And peace cannot be achieved when any faction insists that its interpreation of events gives it the right to disregard security directives. Disobedience cannot be cloaked in worship.
By Prof. A. D Akanem
BOT Chairman
