NEW DIOCESE FROM NSUKKA: HAS ENUGU-EZIKE BEEN SHORTCHANGED?

…Why the Bishop and Catholic Faithful in Nsukka Must Ensure a Fair and Transparent Process

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

By Rev. Dr. Chukwuemeka Okpe

It is no longer news that the creation of a new diocese from the Catholic Diocese of Nsukka is being contemplated. What is becoming increasingly concerning, however, are reports that moves may already be underway to determine the location of the proposed diocese before the pastoral, demographic, institutional and historical realities of all the areas concerned have been fully and fairly considered.

If these reports are accurate, then legitimate questions arise as to whether considerations other than pastoral necessity are beginning to influence a process that ought to be guided by the laws, traditions and pastoral priorities of the Catholic Church.

The creation of a diocese is not an ordinary administrative exercise. Canon 373 of the Code of Canon Law provides that only the supreme authority of the Church has the power to erect particular Churches. A diocesan bishop therefore does not, by personal decision, create a diocese. The ultimate authority rests with the competent supreme authority of the Church.

This distinction is important because preliminary activities, including discussions about locations or even preparations for possible diocesan infrastructure, cannot by themselves constitute the canonical erection of a diocese.

Canon 369 defines a diocese 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 ordinarily requires such a particular Church to be defined within a definite territory, while Canon 374 provides for its division into distinct parts or parishes.

Consequently, when the possibility of creating a new diocese is being examined, the pastoral population, geographical territory, parish organisation, availability of clergy and religious personnel, institutional capacity and the ability of the faithful to sustain the proposed structure are all legitimate matters for consideration.

It is against this background that the case of Enugu-Ezike deserves serious and objective examination.

If there is an area within the Diocese of Nsukka that has demonstrated over the years a substantial Catholic population, strong pastoral structures, numerous vocations, established institutions and considerable human and material resources, then Enugu-Ezike deserves to be prominently considered in any discussion about the location of a new diocese.

The case for Enugu-Ezike did not suddenly emerge because of the present conversation about diocesan reorganisation. Its Catholic history stretches back many decades, and its people have contributed significantly to the development of Catholicism within the Diocese of Nsukka.

Enugu-Ezike has developed into a major Catholic centre, with an established network of parishes and a strong tradition of priestly and religious vocations.

The Clergy, Religious and Aspirants Association of Enugu-Ezike, for instance, identifies itself as an association of diocesan priests, consecrated men and women, and seminarians of Enugu-Ezike origin, and traces its development to 1979. That history, if supported by the relevant records, is an important part of the area’s claim to consideration.

A diocese cannot be sustained by population alone. It requires priests, religious men and women, seminarians, pastoral workers and a faithful capable of sustaining its institutions and apostolic mission.

Enugu-Ezike appears to have developed significant capacity in this regard.

According to figures being presented in the current discussion, Enugu-Ezike has two deaneries and 45 parishes, while Obollo-Afor reportedly has one deanery and 15 parishes. Even with Obollo-Eke and Obollo-Etiti included, the combined figure reportedly stands at about 25 parishes.

These figures should, of course, be independently verified from official diocesan records. But if they are accurate, they raise an important pastoral question: why would an area with such an extensive parish structure and established Catholic presence not receive serious consideration in the process?

Enugu-Ezike also presents a significant demographic argument.

A June 2026 report by Vanguard described Enugu-Ezike as the second-largest “native town” in West Africa. That description reflects the recognised size and significance of the community as a population centre.

However, population size alone cannot determine the location of a Catholic diocese. The more relevant question is how population, Catholic presence, pastoral organisation, geography, accessibility, institutions, vocations and financial sustainability combine to support the pastoral needs of a proposed particular Church.

Claims that between 75 and 80 per cent of the population of Enugu-Ezike is Catholic are significant if they can be substantiated by reliable demographic and diocesan records. Such figures should therefore be placed alongside comparable figures from every other area being considered.

The proper question should not be, “Who has the loudest voice?”

It should be: Which arrangement best serves the pastoral needs of the Catholic faithful?

That question requires evidence.

There is also a historical dimension that deserves proper documentation.

Questions have been raised about the intentions behind the development of major Catholic structures in Enugu-Ezike by earlier Church leaders, including the late Rev. Fr. Glade. Similar questions have been raised concerning the establishment of a diocesan hospital in the area during the episcopate of the late Bishop Francis Okobo.

Were these institutions developed simply to meet immediate pastoral and social needs, or were they also part of a broader long-term vision for Enugu-Ezike?

That question should not be answered through speculation.

The diocesan records should answer it.

If documentary evidence shows that earlier Catholic leaders deliberately developed major ecclesiastical and health institutions in Enugu-Ezike because they regarded the area as strategically important to the future pastoral development of the Church, such evidence deserves to be considered in any present assessment.

Canon Law makes clear that a diocese is fundamentally a particular Church and not merely a cathedral building or administrative headquarters. Nevertheless, existing churches, institutions and other pastoral infrastructure can be relevant to assessing whether a proposed diocesan territory has the practical capacity to sustain diocesan life.

Enugu-Ezike is therefore entitled to ask a reasonable question: if substantial Catholic infrastructure has already been developed there over decades, why should those investments and institutions not form 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 within the Diocese of Nsukka.

Those contributions should not be reduced to sentiment. They can be assessed objectively.

A serious evaluation of any proposed diocese should examine the financial capacity of the various areas to sustain clergy, parishes, diocesan offices, seminarian formation, charitable programmes, education, healthcare and other pastoral responsibilities.

The same principle applies to manpower.

A new diocese requires priests. It requires religious personnel. It requires seminarians. It requires administrators and pastoral workers. It requires a sufficiently organised and committed Catholic population capable of supporting the Church’s mission.

If Enugu-Ezike has developed substantial capacity in these areas, then that capacity deserves to be documented and placed alongside the corresponding capacity of every other proposed location.

Another issue requiring clarification concerns reports of land acquisition at Ohulor for the possible construction of a cathedral.

If such acquisition has indeed taken place, it does not, in itself, establish a diocese or determine its canonical location. Canon 373 is clear that the erection of a particular Church belongs to the supreme authority of the Church.

Nevertheless, the reported development raises a legitimate question: has the location effectively been predetermined before all the relevant pastoral alternatives have been adequately considered?

If the answer is no, then transparency should settle the matter.

If the answer is yes, then the faithful are entitled to ask what objective pastoral criteria informed that decision.

Why should one location appear to be receiving physical preparation while other areas with substantial pastoral claims are still seeking to be heard?

These questions do not amount to a rejection of any particular location. They are questions about process, transparency and pastoral fairness.

The question of consultation is equally important.

Canon 495 provides for a presbyteral council, which represents the presbyterium and assists the diocesan bishop in promoting 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 provides that members of a pastoral council should be selected in a manner that genuinely reflects the entire portion of the People of God, taking into account different areas of the diocese, social conditions, professions and participation in the apostolate.

This is important in the present circumstance.

Reports that priests or representatives from particular areas, including Enugu-Ezike, were inadequately represented in relevant advisory discussions naturally raise questions about whether the pastoral realities of those areas were sufficiently heard.

However, it is equally important not to misunderstand the nature of these councils.

Consultation does not amount to a veto.

Canon 514 makes clear that the pastoral council has only a consultative vote and that it is the diocesan bishop who convokes and presides over it.

Therefore, no parish, priest or community possesses a canonical right to dictate where a new diocese must be located.

But the absence of a veto does not make consultation meaningless.

If a process is intended to understand the pastoral realities of an entire diocese, then relevant communities should reasonably expect their circumstances to be properly represented and considered.

If another location is considered pastorally more suitable for the proposed diocese, there is nothing wrong with that conclusion, provided it is supported by evidence and the appropriate Church authorities are satisfied that the pastoral interests of the faithful are best served by it.

But then, let the evidence be presented.

Let the current Catholic population of each proposed area be established.

Let the number of parishes and deaneries be documented.

Let the number of diocesan priests, religious personnel and seminarians be examined.

Let the existing Catholic institutions be identified.

Let geographical accessibility and territorial coherence be assessed.

Let the financial capacity of each area be considered.

Let the history of Catholic development in each area be documented.

Let existing pastoral infrastructure be taken into account.

Let the advantages and challenges of each possible arrangement be placed before the competent Church authorities.

That would provide a transparent basis for a decision.

Anything less risks creating unnecessary suspicion and division among Catholics who should ordinarily be united by their common faith.

This is also where the leadership of the Most Rev. Prof. Godfrey Igwebuike Onah, Bishop of Nsukka, becomes particularly important.

The people of Enugu-Ezike have every reason to approach the matter with restraint and respect for their bishop and for the authority of the Church.

At the same time, respect for ecclesiastical authority should not mean silence in the face of legitimate questions.

Canon 392 requires a diocesan bishop to protect the unity of the universal Church, promote the common discipline of the Church and exercise vigilance so that abuses do not enter ecclesiastical discipline.

The present moment therefore provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the pastoral interests of every part of the Diocese of Nsukka matter.

If decisions are being discussed or taken by persons around the bishop without his knowledge, clarification would be appropriate.

If they are being taken with his knowledge, the faithful deserve to understand the pastoral reasons behind them.

If Enugu-Ezike has been considered and found unsuitable, then the objective reasons should be clear.

If it has not been adequately considered, there is still an opportunity for the process to be broadened.

The people of Enugu-Ezike should not be portrayed as demanding a diocese merely because of local pride or sentiment.

Their argument should be based on evidence.

They are asking questions about their churches.

They are asking questions about their priests and religious vocations.

They are asking questions about institutions established through the contributions of their people.

They are asking questions about decades of Catholic development.

They are asking whether the population, parish structures, manpower, financial contributions, geographical position and pastoral infrastructure of Enugu-Ezike are receiving adequate consideration.

These are legitimate questions.

But the answer should not be determined by sentiment on either side.

It should be determined by facts, pastoral necessity, the relevant canonical procedures and the competent authority of the Catholic Church.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether Enugu-Ezike is entitled to a diocese simply because it has a large population, numerous parishes or a long Catholic history.

Nor should another location be entitled to one simply because preparations may already have begun there.

The central question is much simpler:

What arrangement will best serve the pastoral good of the Catholic faithful in the territory to be carved out of the Diocese of Nsukka?

That question deserves a transparent, evidence-based and properly consultative examination.

If Enugu-Ezike’s case is strong, let the evidence establish it.

If another location has a stronger pastoral case, let the evidence establish that too.

What the Catholic faithful deserve is not a predetermined outcome, but a process in which the relevant facts are fairly presented, the appropriate voices are heard and the final decision is made by the competent authority of the Church.

Enugu-Ezike is therefore asking for one thing: let the facts speak.