Tokoloshe-battling priest loses appeal

AN attempt to appeal against a High Court judgement that confirmed his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church over witchcraft allegations has ended in failure for former tokoloshe-battling priest Gert Petrus.

At every turn throughout his litigation with the Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church in Namibia, Father Petrus has failed to comply with court rules, Acting Judge of Appeal Kate O’Regan comments in the Supreme Court judgement in which an appeal by Petrus was struck from the court roll yesterday.Judge O’Regan, with Judge of Appeal Sylvester Mainga and Acting Judge of Appeal Pius Langa agreeing with her, ordered that Petrus’s application for condonation for his late filing of an appeal to the Supreme Court was refused, his appeal was struck from the roll, and that he has to pay the legal costs of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese.Petrus’s rift with his church’s leadership started in October and November 2004, when he claimed to have been the target of ‘witchcraft attacks’ on himself.After he had called on the special skills of Zimbabwean exorcists, an invisible demon was found in his parish residence, Petrus has claimed. The demon became visible after some salt water had been sprinkled over it, and he then had it destroyed by having it thrown into a fire, Petrus claimed.The Church accused Petrus, who was ordained as a priest in 1986 and had been a parish priest in Khomasdal since 1993, of believing he had been bewitched by certain of his parishioners.According to Petrus, three ‘objects of witchcraft’ were ‘caught’ on the premises of his church, St Mary’s Help of Christians Parish in Khomasdal, between October 28 and November 24 2004. When he then acted to have these forces of evil expelled from the church premises, he was trying to act against witchcraft, rather than participating in it, Petrus has stated.The Roman Catholic Archdiocese did not take kindly to the priest’s battle against evil, and informed him in a letter dated November 25 2004 that he had, through involvement ‘in the practice related to witchcraft’, excommunicated himself from the church.By April 2005, the church filed a case against Petrus in the High Court, asking for an order declaring that he had been excommunicated from the church, that he should stop conducting services at his church, and that he should vacate the parish residence where he had been living.Such a court order was made at the end of May 2005. In the absence of opposition from Petrus the order was confirmed in July 2008.Six months later, Petrus lodged an application to ask for the rescission of the court order. In a judgement delivered in January 2008, Acting Judge Arthur Pickering dismissed Petrus’s application.In that judgement, Acting Judge Pickering also analysed the church law and concluded that Petrus had indeed been validly excommunicated. One of the findings made by Acting Judge Pickering was that Petrus was superstitious and believed ‘almost fanatically’ in the existence of tokoloshes.More than 18 months later, Petrus lodged an appeal against that judgement. In terms of the rules of the Supreme Court, an appeal should have been lodged within 21 days after the judgement was given.By waiting so long before he lodged an appeal, Petrus was in flagrant disregard of the court rules, Judge O’Regan found.On the merits of his appeal, Judge O’Regan commented that the Archdiocese’s request for the High Court to declare that Petrus had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church was based entirely on ecclesiastical or canon law, which are matters over which neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.While Petrus may have good prospects of having the court’s order on his excommunication overturned on appeal, his prospects of success on the eviction order and the order prohibiting him from conducting services in the parish church are less promising, Judge O’Regan found.Petrus’s prospects for success on appeal are not sufficient to outweigh his repeated and substantial non-compliance with the court rules and the absence of any detailed or convincing explanation for that, the judge stated.Petrus argued his appeal in person. The Archdiocese was represented by Geoffrey Dicks, instructed by LorentzAngula Inc.