COGWA: Kubik Needs To Apologize For His "Ugly, Filthy Lie..."

The UCG/COGWA battle is gearing up again.  Charges of slander against Kubik are being leveled.  Once more we get to see the finest of the "true" church engaging in what seems to come naturally to so many in the hierarchy of the COG.  Thanks for showing the world once again what TRUE Christian love is all about (at least in Armstrongism.)

Open letter from Tine Banda 

The question of how much time one should invest in countering slander is of course a personal one, a question that I have been wrestling with for months. The return on such an investment is usually low, and if one values their autonomy, the residual risks can be high. But in light of the fact that both my family and I are now inundated with genuine queries (interestingly from some in UCG), and also in view of the fact that on multiple occasions I have been solicited and encouraged to give my personal comment on the matter (more vigorously so when I travelled out of jurisdiction to attend the Feast of Tabernacles), I did make the decision a couple of weeks ago to address a few core issues. Even then, it did take me a while to finally put pen to paper, because quite frankly, I do not labor under a sense of urgency when it comes to countering propaganda.

While I realize that for the most part this effort may well turn out to an academic exercise with little practical benefit (whether for myself, or for my readers), to the extent that what I am about to say will help some people (however few) better understand the issues, I am convinced that the benefits outweigh the hassle, perhaps only marginally.

My statement is a tribute to all of you (regardless of affiliation), that have displayed exceptional maturity in seeking first to understand the full scope of the issues at play, before presiding as a self-appointed judge, jury and executor in a matter that you do not, and cannot, fully understand. The world, both the present and the next, needs you.

But on to the issue at hand: On October 7th 2011 a dramatic prayer request was widely disseminated, and those who have come to know both myself and my family over the years immediately knew that something was amiss. The gist of the request was essentially that brethren worldwide were to “pray for Zambian brethren in need of protection from cattle rustlers” [paraphrased]. While many were, and still are, stunned by the severity of the allegations that were dispatched far afield in such dramatic fashion, I personally was not.

The same allegation made its debut as early as May 24th 2011, this time on Oath, in an Affidavit that formed the core pleading of the law suit (for church assets) mounted against Mr. Banda by Victor Kubik. So for my family and I (and the rest of the brethren in Zambia), it was simply a matter of here we go again. That aspect of the court case was of course found to be lacking in merit. But as I have noted to several individuals over the past few months, the court of public opinion, similar to a kangaroo court, does not follow the procedural rules of evidence. And as such, a case can be built, tried, and won entirely on hearsay evidence.

But I digress. To get back to the prayer request in question, if at all anything surprised me about that request, it was the issue of timing, not of content. Court pleadings in Zambia are a matter of public record and as such, this accusation has been in the public domain for a term of months. That being the case, the question ripe for posture is this: If cattle rustling had been occurring as early as May, why did the situation only become of sufficient urgency to warrant an “urgent” Prayer Request in October?

In his open letter of October 7, Mr. Banda lamented the fact that these accusations had been spread abroad before the persons besmirched could be approached in private as per the biblical mandate. In response to the open letter, Mr. Kubik then went ahead and published a letter he had written to Mr. Banda on September 30, and also published Mr. Banda’s subsequent response on even date, presumably to demonstrate that contrary to Mr. Banda’s assertions, he (Mr. Kubik) had so approached Mr. Banda.

Let’s be clear, these allegations had been in the public domain for months. The prayer request of October 05 was merely the latest installment of slander. Indeed, prior to Mr. Kubik’s letter of September 30, an elder from the United States had already alerted Mr. Banda via email and phone of the allegations Mr. Kubik was making. It is therefore preposterous to claim that the letter of September 30 qualified as a private confrontation when the defamatory allegations had already gone far afield. Moreover, Mr. Banda had already made substantive responses to those allegations both in and out of court. It would be superfluous and redundant for him to replicate a defense to Mr. Kubik, the very person who had dragged him to court just a few months earlier. Further, the tone of the September 30 letter (with official signature) was hardly conciliatory or fact-finding. It very much carried a “do what I ask/or else” tone. It did not merit a response, and I was surprised that Mr. Banda even offered one.

The “or else” part of the letter of course had no bite. It would take much more than that to intimidate a man who had just recently emerged from a grueling court battle. And having so emerged, Mr. Banda was in no mood to entertain threats.

I also wish to earnestly lay to rest the false allegation that Mr. Banda rebuffed peaceful reconciliation. Let us be absolutely clear, Mr. Banda resigned from the ministry of UCG-aia in January, and that very month, received a threatening letter from a lawyer acting on the instructions of Mr. Kubik. Legal instructions and threats had already been issued as far back as January without a single attempt at “peaceful resolution”, and in a letter to Mr. Banda in February, Mr. Kubik’s lawyer informed Mr. Banda that he had instructions from Victor Kubik to issue court process against him.

It was only in April that Mrs. Kubik emailed both Mr. Banda and me, expressing a desire to talk. Mr. Banda immediately responded to Mrs. Kubik expressing a desire to speak to Mr. Kubik directly AND requesting that Mr. Kubik do the biblical thing and drop the legal charges he had initiated against him as a brother. Mr. Kubik then contacted Mr. Banda expressing his willingness to talk, but he curiously did not address the issue of the law suit he was initiating.

Mr. Banda then sent Mr. Kubik the email I copy below, reminding him to address the issue of the law suit. Could Mr. Banda’s email even remotely be classified a rebuff? Or does this sound like a man genuinely interested in reconciliation premised on an adherence to scripture?

From: Kambani Banda
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:35 PM
To: ‘victor kubik.
Cc: ‘bev kubik
Subject: RE: I will be glad to meet with you

Good evening sir
Thank you very much for letter. I really was looking forward to hearing from you for a long time.

I deeply appreciate your willingness to meet with me but I want to quote from the letter I sent to Mrs. Kubik.

If Mr. Kubik genuinely wants us to reconcile, then I request that he does what God’s Word instructs and refrain from legal action and talk with me.

Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 make it clear that Christians should strive to sit down and talk through differences and discuss matters and make judgments based on His Word, before ever considering going to the law or courts of this world.

In order for this to happen, he would need to:

1) Instruct his lawyer Mr. Nyirenda and copy the instruction to me. The instructions should read that Mr. Nyirenda write a letter to my lawyers informing them that, his client, Mr. Kubik has dropped all legal claims against me.

2) When my Lawyers write a letter to me confirming the facts in 1 above, then, we can make a plan to talk

I checked your letter thoroughly and there in, you make no reference to my above request.

Was this an error of omission? Or God forbid and I even tremble as ask the next question, could it be that you are not willing to do what God instructs in his word? I certainly hope that this was an error of omission.

We met in 2000 and began a relationship, which I still deeply value, based on the understanding that we both feared God. Our proposed meeting will only bear good fruit if this premise still holds true.

When I receive a comment on both of my requests then:

a) I will be in a position to comment on the rest of your letter

b) I will also be in a position to decide whether to meet you next week or to meet you in court; should you choose to travel the later route.

Yours sincerely
Kambani Banda

After Mr. Kubik failed to state whether he was willing to abide by scripture, Mr. Banda for the third and final time in a subsequent email dated April 21st, repeated his request to Mr. Kubik and never heard back from him. The next “communication” Mr. Banda received from Mr. Kubik was formal court process.

 In light of the above, how can it seriously be maintained that a “peaceful resolution” was pursued, and that for months! Aside from the April communications I have alluded to above, Mr. Banda and Mr. Kubik did not communicate until September 30. Sadly, it is Mr. Kubik who rebuffed peaceful reconciliation by his unwillingness to drop the lawsuit as an overture to resolution.

And so began a very sad chapter in church history, where brother went to law against brother, and that before unbelievers. It seems to me that the question that needs to be asked is this: why was a lawsuit (for church assets) initiated in crude defiance of the clear instructions in 1st Corinthians 6?

With all the Hullabaloo that went abroad concerning the “unconscionable” thievery of cattle, it may interest you to learn that Armstrong Maninga, the individual who filed the bogus police complaint against Winter (and then subsequently against the four trustees of the church including Mr. Banda), this past week visited the home of Jerry Schachoongo (one of our elders that resides in the Mumbwa area) to APOLOGIZE for the lies that he has told, the lies that have thrown the whole community into disarray, and in particular, the ugly and filthy lie that our brethren STOLE cattle belonging to him and two other members of similar affiliation. This apology was made in the presence of witnesses including senior members of the village community and Armstrong cannot distance himself from it. What is interesting is that local members of the community (not affiliated with any church group) are acquainted with the revolving fund of oxen and have strongly castigated Armstrong for his fabrication. Please understand that these falsities have not only impacted those in the church, they have also impacted the small rural community where these people live. And while we cannot withhold forgiveness, the havoc that these lies have wreaked in the lives of innocent people is horrendous, not to mention the many precious hours that have been dithered away resolving this issue.

All the Oxen in the revolving pool are in the custody of the Trustees where they belong. Despite Armstrong’s public apology and the various assurances the police have given to drop the matter, I would not be surprised if these allegations resurface again. If criminal charges are pursued, my professional opinion is that the allegations will be relatively easy to dislodge given that the revolving cattle fund is of such notoriety in the community: almost every last person in a particular radius (from the weaned toddler to the senior citizen) is aware that the charges leveled against a son of that community (Winter) were malicious and bogus.

As I conclude now, I wish to make this abundantly clear: if you do not hear an immediate response to allegations disseminated on the internet or elsewhere, understand that we are otherwise occupied. We are not paid to sit and answer allegations; we have to make our bread and butter elsewhere; we too, have to eat.

Do not however, mistake our silence for acquiescence. You will observe that even when an internet article misrepresenting the outcome of judicial proceedings was published, we let the fabrication go unchallenged (never mind the fact that the outcome reported in the article was actually the exact opposite of the outcome that subsisted in reality).

The months that we spent fighting the court case were incredibly involving and stressful: countering misinformation was not a top priority then. Moreover, when policemen come to your home to arrest a family member on trumped up charges (as they tried to do last week, albeit with little success) the last thing on your mind is the latest spin or innuendo gracing the internet. I just thank God that I returned home from my nomadic wonderings in time to support my parents deal with this drama…which has now become a torment of unmitigated proportions.

To those of you inclined to question the authenticity of this basic piece of writing, please do your homework, and stick to an issue based discussion. Yes, I wrote this, and no, nobody “polished” it up for me. I graduated at the top of my Cornell Law School class, so I am sure I can string together a sentence or two…and pay appropriate heed to American grammar and syntax.

The author of this article can be contacted at:    tinebanda@yahoo.co.uk