ABAM boycott of Church’s Jubilee declared illegal
The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mokokchung, on 23 May, delivered a landmark judgment in the declaratory suit filed by Molungyimsen Village and two others against the Executive Committee (Sanen Luden) of the Ao Baptist Arogo Mungdang (ABAM). The case centered around the historic origin and continuity of the Molungyimsen Baptist Church and the legality of the Executive Committee’s boycott of the Sesquicentennial Jubilee celebration held in November 2022.
The Plaintiffs (Molungyimsen) challenged the Executive Committee for boycotting the Jubilee event and disputed interpretations of key historical resolutions related to the church’s origin and relocation. The Court framed five crucial points for determination, including whether ABAM’s Resolution No. 40, passed at the 90th Annual General Conference/Central Council in 1986, recognized the Molungyimsen Baptist Church as first established at Molungkimong village on December 23, 1872, and whether the boycott by the defendants was lawful.
Court’s detailed findings
On the Church’s origin:
The Plaintiffs sought a decree declaring that the 1986 ABAM resolution officially recognized the Molungyimsen Baptist Church as having originated in Molungkimong village on December 23, 1872. However, after evaluating the evidence and pleadings, the Court found no clear or explicit endorsement of this claim in the Resolution. Consequently, this relief was dismissed.
On the Church’s relocation:
The Plaintiffs also sought recognition that the Church was relocated to the present Molungyimsen village on October 24, 1876, along with its followers. The Court found insufficient evidence that the 1986 Resolution acknowledged this relocation as an official act. This relief was also denied.
On validity of later ABAM documents:
The Plaintiffs argued that the Preface of the 2016 revised ABAM Temzung and the ABAM Nukla 2030 did not override the 1986 Resolution regarding the Church’s origin and history. The Court disagreed, concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the later documents did not supersede or amend the 1986 Resolution, thus rejecting this claim.
On the boycott of the Sesquicentennial Jubilee:
Significantly, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs on this point. It declared the defendants’ boycott of the Sesquicentennial Jubilee in November 2022 unlawful and contrary to ABAM’s decisions. The judgment stated that the Executive Committee’s actions were “in absolute negation to the history of the Molungyimsen Church and the Molungyimsen village/villagers” and violated the Bye-laws of the ABAM Constitution by overriding Article/OCET XV points B(18) and (19). The boycott was found to be beyond the defendants’ authority and in breach of their constitutional duties.
On the request for perpetual injunction:
The Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting contrary to the 1986 Resolution No. 40. Since the Court had ruled against the first two foundational points, the injunction was not granted.
Court criticizes defendants’ non-participation
The Court also noted with concern that the defendants (ABAM) initially appeared through counsel but later chose to abstain from contesting the suit. Records revealed that ABAM held an emergency meeting on June 4, 2024, during which it was resolved by Resolution No. 12 that ABAM would not engage with the Court proceedings. It was mentioned that based on the teachings of Bible, Baptist Distinctive, ABAM Constitution 2016, ABAM Vision 2030 and Ao Baptist Church working guidelines (Revised Edition,2022) ABAM decided not to go to Court.
The Plaintiffs were also asked to withdraw the case filed against ABAM in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mokokchung. It was also said that if the request was not accepted, based on ABAM’s decision (SLT/2020- 07) there shall be “no cooperation”.
The Court underscored that “the Rule of Law is that the legal system is designed to uphold the law, regardless of individual religious beliefs” and declared that the defendants’ decision to avoid the legal process “undermines the fairness and integrity of this Court.” The Judge referenced Biblical teachings (Matthew 22:21 and Romans 13:1) to emphasize that religious beliefs do not exempt individuals or organizations from adhering to lawful authority.
Final order
In light of the above, the Court partly allowed and decreed the declaratory suit. It granted a judgment declaring that the defendants’ boycott of the Sesquicentennial Jubilee was illegal and against the decisions and Resolutions passed by ABAM during its 1986 Annual General Conference/Central Council.
The Court directed the preparation of a formal decree within one week and formally disposed of Declaratory Suit No. 7 of 2023. The judgment was declared in District Session Court at Mokokchung on May 23, 2025.