Leadership is measured not only by the decisions taken but also by the moments when silence becomes a public statement in itself. When controversies persist and those entrusted with authority remain quiet, questions naturally arise: Is the silence a reflection of patience and prudence, or does it create the impression of indifference? Does silence preserve neutrality, or does it unintentionally appear to protect an existing arrangement?
These questions have become central to the growing concerns surrounding the controversy involving Rev. Fr. Dr. Edwin Obiora and the governance of Tansian University, Umunya. The attention of many observers has turned towards the Catholic Diocese of Awka and, particularly, the leadership of Bishop Most Rev. Paulinus Ezeokafor, with questions about whether sufficient pastoral intervention, independent judgment and institutional oversight have been exercised.
For critics of the current situation, the prolonged silence of Fr. Obiora diocesan bishop has created an uncomfortable perception: that silence may have become aligned with forces seeking to preserve certain interests. This perception has fuelled claims of a possible coadunation of collusion, conspiracy and complicity — not necessarily as established facts, but as concerns arising from the absence of visible action, public explanation or decisive pastoral scolding against Fr. Edwin Obiora
The responsibility of a bishop, however, extends beyond protecting individuals, relationships or institutional reputation. A bishop is called to be a guardian of justice, a defender of the Church’s integrity and a shepherd responsible for maintaining the confidence of the faithful. Ecclesiastical leadership demands impartiality, especially when questions involve clergy, Church institutions and matters affecting public trust.
The concern expressed is that when a bishop appears silent in the face of serious allegations or unresolved disputes such as orchestrated by Fr. Obiora in Tansian University, that silence can unintentionally create the impression that certain persons or interests enjoy protection. Whether such interpretations are justified must be determined through facts, transparency and proper investigation. However, the existence of such perceptions demonstrates the danger that prolonged silence poses to credibility.
However the matter is placed of thwarted, the controversy is centered on the Last Will and Testament of Msgr. Prof. John Bosco Akam, in which he made it clear that Tansian University is Will to his Congregration, the Missionary Servants of the Church (MSC), now known as the Missionary Sons of Blessed Iwene Tansi (MST).
If such testamentary provisions were lawfully made and remain valid, they deserve respect and implementation in accordance with both civil and Church law. The Catholic Church recognises the importance of honouring legitimate wishes expressed by the priests and religious.
Canon 1299 recognises the right of Priests and Religious persons to dispose of their property for pious purposes. Canon 1300 requires that legitimate dispositions made for such purposes be faithfully observed, while Canon 1301 places responsibility on the diocesan bishop to supervise their proper execution. These principles underline the importance of respecting lawful intentions and ensuring that entrusted legacies are not undermined.
Therefore, if Msgr. Akam’s Last Will and Testament contains valid provisions concerning Tansian University and the MST congregation, the appropriate ecclesiastical and legal authorities have a duty to ensure that those provisions are properly implemented.
Where a valid testamentary process exists and an executor or competent authority has been appointed to carry out the wishes of the deceased, that process deserves protection from unnecessary obstruction. This is why many members of the faithful continue to look to Bishop Ezeokafor to recuse his erring priest.
After all, Msgr. Akam’s last diocese of incarnation was the Diocese of Ekwulobia, under the bishopric of His Eminence, Peter Cardinal Okpaleke. Therefore, Fr. Obiorah, coming from the Diocese of Awka to involve himself in the affairs of a Monsignor in another diocese—the Diocese of Ekwulobia—is an aberration.
The Catholic Church has consistently taught the values of truth, obedience, responsibility and proper governance. A diocesan bishop has the duty to guide priests, address concerns and ensure that ecclesiastical structures operate according to established principles. When controversies arise, the faithful naturally expect their shepherd to provide clarity and demonstrate that justice remains the foundation of Church leadership.
Accusations of collusion, conspiracy or complicity cannot be established through perception alone. Yet leadership has a responsibility to prevent circumstances where silence allows such perceptions to grow unchecked.
Transparency remains the strongest response to suspicion. When authorities communicate clearly, explain decisions and demonstrate impartiality, confidence is strengthened. When explanations are absent, uncertainty expands and speculation becomes inevitable.
The challenge before Bishop Paulinus Ezeokafor is therefore greater than responding to criticism. It is a test of episcopal responsibility and public confidence. A transparent pastoral approach would help separate facts from assumptions, restore trust and demonstrate that Church authority remains committed to justice rather than personal interests.
The faithful do not seek division within the Church. They seek assurance that the values preached from the pulpit — truth, humility, justice and accountability — are equally upheld within Church leadership structures.
The controversy surrounding Tansian University has consequently become a defining moment in Bishop Ezeokafor’s episcopal stewardship. History often remembers leaders not only for the actions they take, but also for the moments when they choose to speak, provide direction and defend the principles entrusted to their care.
