…Why the Bishop and Catholic faithfuls in Nsukka must wake up and avoid this pending Injustice on Enugu- Ezike
By Rev Dr. Chukwuemeka Okpe.
It is no longer news that a new diocese is being contemplated from the Catholic Diocese of Nsukka. What is becoming increasingly disturbing, however, are reports of moves from unexpected quarters to determine the location of the proposed diocese before the pastoral, demographic, institutional and canonical realities of all the areas concerned have been fairly considered.
If the reports we are hearing are true, then the development raises serious questions about whether considerations other than pastoral necessity are beginning to influence a process that ought to be guided by the laws and traditions of the Catholic Church.
This is not an ordinary administrative exercise. Canon 373 of the Code of Canon Law is clear that it is only the supreme authority of the Church that has the power to erect particular Churches. A local bishop does not have the canonical power to create a diocese by personal decision, but his influence matters, especially ours, which has Rome connection and influence.
For what a Catholic diocese entails, Canon 369 provides the basic meaning of a diocese. It sees it as a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop, with the cooperation of the presbyterium, so that it constitutes a particular Church. Canon 372 further provides that, as a rule, such a particular Church is defined within a definite territory, while Canon 374 requires every diocese to be divided into distinct parts or parishes. These provisions make the pastoral population, territory and parish organisation of any proposed diocese matters that cannot reasonably be ignored.
It is against this canonical background that the case of Enugu-Ezike must be examined. If there is one area within the Diocese of Nsukka that has demonstrated over the years the population, Catholic identity, pastoral structures, vocations, institutions and human capacity necessary for serious consideration as a diocesan centre, Enugu-Ezike deserves to be placed prominently before the competent Church authorities.
The case of Enugu-Ezike is not being manufactured because of the present discussion about a new diocese to be created from Nsukka Diocese, because its Catholic history goes back many decades, and its people have made substantial contributions to the growth and development of Catholicism within the Diocese of Nsukka.
Enugu-Ezike is not merely another parish area in the diocese. It has developed into a major Catholic centre with an established network of parishes and a strong tradition of priestly and religious vocations. Available Catholic records demonstrate the depth of priestly and religious development associated with Enugu-Ezike. Its Clergy, Religious and Aspirants Association identifies itself as an association of diocesan priests, consecrated men and women and seminarians of Enugu-Ezike origin and traces its development to 1979, a date for which no equivalent can be attributed to the proposed Obollo-Afor Diocese.
This is significant because a diocese cannot be sustained by population alone. It requires priests, religious men and women, seminarians and other pastoral workers. A place with a strong vocation culture has an important pastoral advantage because diocesan life requires people capable of administering parishes, celebrating the sacraments, teaching the faith, conducting evangelisation and supporting charitable and social works.
It is a known fact that Enugu-Ezike has demonstrated that capacity. The locally presented figures go even further, as the Church in that area has two deaneries and 45 parishes, whereas Obollo-Afor has only one deanery and 15 parishes. Even if Obollo-Eke and Obollo-Etiti are added, they will have 25 parishes in all, and this is where the argument becomes difficult to ignore.
How can an area with such a large Catholic population, such an extensive parish network, such a deep vocation culture and such a long history of Catholic development be pushed aside in a discussion about the creation of a new diocese, as is currently being witnessed with what is happening with the new diocesan creation in Nsukka?
Going by Canon Law, the very definition of a diocese in Canon 369 concerns a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop. Canon 372 deals with territorial definition, while Canon 374 requires a diocesan structure based on parishes. Therefore, the size and distribution of the Catholic population and the existing pastoral organisation are plainly relevant to any serious assessment of a proposed diocese, which is why Enugu-Ezike tops the chart.
In the creation of a new diocese from Nsukka Catholic Diocese, Enugu-Ezike also has a significant demographic argument. In June 2026, Vanguard published a report describing Enugu-Ezike as the second-largest native town in West Africa, a report that reflects the recognised size and importance of Enugu-Ezike as a population centre.
The issue, however, is not merely the size of Enugu-Ezike but also its Catholic composition and organisation.
It is also a known fact that the Catholic population of Enugu-Ezike is between 75 and 80 per cent of its population, which shows an exceptionally strong Catholic presence within a large population centre and further strengthens the pastoral case for a diocesan structure within the Nsukka axis instead of any other area.
An area that combines population, Catholic concentration, parish structures, clergy, religious vocations, institutions, historical development and financial participation cannot be left behind when making a serious consideration for a new diocese from Nsukka.
Towing the line of history, there is also a historical dimension that cannot be swept aside: the case of late Fr. Glade. Was the late Rev. Fr. Glade acting without foresight when he developed a major Catholic church structure in Enugu-Ezike, which local people have long regarded as having the potential to serve a future diocesan purpose? Was the late Bishop Francis Okobo acting without reason when a diocesan hospital was established in Enugu-Ezike? These are not questions to be answered by sentiment. The relevant diocesan records should answer them. If documentary evidence establishes that earlier Catholic leaders deliberately developed major church and health institutions in Enugu-Ezike with a view to its long-term pastoral importance, then such records should not be left out, as they show that the area has long been projected to be so.
Canon Law makes it clear that the diocese is a particular Church, not simply a building or geographical headquarters. But a suitable cathedral and established institutions can form part of the practical infrastructure required for diocesan administration. Canon 1215, dealing with the construction of churches, also requires consideration of the good of souls and the availability of the means necessary for construction and divine worship. Enugu-Ezike, therefore, has every reason to ask why the structures already developed there should be ignored when the future of the Catholic faithful in the area is being discussed. They also have every reason to ask why their contributions to Nsukka Diocese are not considered as part of the assessment.
For decades, the people of Enugu-Ezike have contributed financially, materially and through human resources to the growth of Catholic institutions and pastoral activities. A serious diocesan assessment should be thorough and not based on selective memory, as financial sustainability is very relevant to the ability of any new diocese to support its clergy, parishes, offices, formation programmes, charitable activities and other pastoral responsibilities.
The same applies to manpower. A proposed diocese needs priests. It needs religious personnel. It needs seminarians. It needs parish administrators. It needs people capable of supporting diocesan institutions. It needs a faithful capable of sustaining its pastoral missions, and Enugu-Ezike has all these in quantum. The area has developed a manpower base that deserves serious examination, more so than the proposed Ohulor, Obollo, which has become particularly troubling.
If the reported acquisition of land at Ohulor for the construction of a cathedral is accurate, it raises an obvious question: has the decision on the location of the proposed diocese effectively been made before all the relevant pastoral alternatives have been properly considered? Land acquisition is not the same thing as canonical erection of a diocese. Canon 373 remains decisive: only the supreme authority of the Church can erect a particular Church. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that no local land acquisition, proposed cathedral project or administrative preparation can by itself legally create a diocese.
If, however, such preparations are being made while the case of Enugu-Ezike is still supposedly under consideration, then the people of Enugu-Ezike are entitled to ask legitimate questions. Why the apparent haste? Why should one location appear to be receiving physical preparation before the pastoral claims of Enugu-Ezike have been fully examined? Why should an area with a substantial Catholic population, established parishes, numerous vocations, Catholic institutions and a long history of contribution to the Diocese of Nsukka be treated as though its claim does not exist? These questions become even more important when the issue of consultation is considered.
Canon 495 provides for the presbyteral council, which assists the bishop in governing the diocese and promotes the pastoral good of the portion of the People of God entrusted to him. Canon 511 provides for a pastoral council where pastoral circumstances warrant one. Canon 512 further says that the members of such a pastoral council should be selected in such a way that the entire portion of the People of God constituting the diocese is truly reflected, taking account of different regions, social conditions, professions and participation in the apostolate.
This is where reports that priests from particular areas, especially Enugu-Ezike, were allegedly excluded from relevant advisory structures become troubling. If priests or other relevant representatives from Enugu-Ezike were deliberately kept away from consultative processes in order to prevent the area’s concerns from being heard, that raises serious questions about the openness and fairness of the process.
However, we are aware that consultation is not the same as a veto. Canon 514 expressly states that the pastoral council has only a consultative vote and that the diocesan bishop alone convokes and presides over it. Therefore, no priest, parish or local community can claim an automatic canonical right to dictate the location of a new diocese, but consultation that systematically excludes relevant areas would defeat the purpose of having representative pastoral structures in the first place.
According to reports from within the affected circles, priests from the relevant areas were not adequately represented in some of the advisory structures and were only included later, reluctantly. From the above, the question is not whether those priests had the power to create the diocese, because they do not, but whether the people and pastoral realities they represent were given a proper opportunity to be heard, which is a legitimate question under the Church’s own emphasis on pastoral consultation and representation.
Why should a town that has produced priests and religious personnel, established numerous Catholic communities, supported diocesan institutions, contributed financially to the life of the Diocese of Nsukka and maintained a strong Catholic identity be expected to quietly accept a decision that appears to overlook its preparedness? Why should the people of Enugu-Ezike not demand that the facts be placed side by side and objectively examined? Why should a place that has apparently been developed over decades as a major Catholic centre suddenly become unsuitable when the question of a new diocese arises?
If the answer is that another location is pastorally more suitable, then let the evidence be produced. Let the current number of Catholics be produced. Let the current number of parishes be produced. Let the number of priests and religious personnel be produced. Let the financial contribution of the different areas be examined. Let the existing Catholic institutions be listed. Let geographical accessibility be assessed. Let the history of Catholic development in each proposed area be documented. Let the pastoral advantages and disadvantages of each possible arrangement be placed before the competent Church authorities. That would be a fair process, as anything less will naturally create suspicion.
It is therefore difficult to understand why the case for Enugu-Ezike should be treated as an inconvenience rather than as a legitimate pastoral question. If the reports of an attempt to establish the new diocesan centre elsewhere are correct, then those behind such a move owe the Catholic faithful a clear explanation. But if the reports are false, the simplest way to end the speculation is transparency. If they are true, then the people of Enugu-Ezike have every right to ask why their pastoral case has apparently been given less consideration.
This is where the integrity of the leadership of Nsukka Diocese becomes important. The people of Enugu-Ezike are restrained from taking an immediate confrontational position largely out of respect for the Lord Bishop of Nsukka, Most Rev. Prof. Godfrey Igwebuike Onah, under whose leadership they believe that such a serious pastoral matter can still be handled fairly.
Bishop Onah has a responsibility not merely to make decisions but to protect the unity and pastoral good of the diocese, as Canon 392 provides that a bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and to ensure observance of ecclesiastical laws. The same canon requires vigilance so that abuses do not enter ecclesiastical discipline. That makes the present moment a test; not necessarily a test of whether Enugu-Ezike will get what it wants, but rather a test of whether every relevant pastoral fact will be given a fair hearing.
It is difficult to imagine that Bishop Onah, known publicly for his strong emphasis on the moral and spiritual responsibilities of leadership, would willingly preside over a process that deliberately suppresses the legitimate pastoral case of a substantial part of the faithful. But precisely because the bishop is the chief pastor of the diocese, it is also difficult to completely disconnect his office from whatever is being done in the name of the diocese. If decisions are being taken by people around him without his knowledge, the proper thing is for the matter to be clarified. If they are being taken with his knowledge, then the faithful deserve to understand the pastoral reasons. If Enugu-Ezike has been properly considered and rejected on objective pastoral grounds, let those grounds be made clear. If it has not been properly considered, there is still time to correct the process.
That is why the people of Enugu-Ezike should not be dismissed as troublemakers for asking questions. They are asking questions about their churches. They are asking questions about their priests. They are asking questions about the institutions built by their people. They are asking questions about decades of Catholic contribution. They are asking whether the pastoral realities of their area are being properly considered, and they are asking these questions within the framework of the Catholic Church and its Canon Law.
