AMORC vs CHALLENGE: the Million Naira Judgement

7/24/2019 AMORC vs CHALLENGE: the Million Naira Judgement

1/18

a w i e s

v *

c w u e w x

. ' u r T \ " . \ r \x v ' . y v ' yKXV

Extracts from the judgment delivered

by Mr. Justice Edem Koofreh in the

case between AMORC and ECWA

Productions Ltd.


2/18

AMORC V CHALLENGE

The Mill ion Naira Judgment

1988 Challenge Pulications, Jos

ISBN 978-137-344-X

Challenge Publications,

P.M.B. 2108, Jos.

Printed by Challenge Press, Jos.


3/18

The Million Naira Judgment

Extracts from the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Edem

Koofreh in the case between AMORC and ECWA Produc-

tions Ltd.

Introduction

On May 23 1988, the Cross River Chief Judge, Mr. JusticeEdem Koofreh gave his verdict on the NIOm libel suit broughtagainst ECWA Productions Ltd. (EPL) by the RegisteredTrustees of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC.

AMORC had sued EPL for publishing in their magazine.Today's Challenge,articles they considered as defamatory ofthe Order.

In his judgment, Koofreh said he found the defendants,EPL, guilty of the libel charges, and awarded Nl,000,000(One million naira) as general damages, with N405 out ofpocket expenses. He said since the greater claim for specialdamages (N8m) have not been proved, he would award onlyN500 costs.

It is not possible for us to publish the full text of the102-page judgment read in six hours. However, in view of

popular demand, we are publishing in this booklet a com

parative analysis of the various issues at stake, the argumentsadvanced in court on both sides and the judges decisions onthem. The booklet also contain direct excerpts from the textof the judgment.


4/18

Panorama of Major Issues and the Courts Verdict

Challenge Findings/Opinion

Secrecy

AMORC is a secret society

because:

* It has certain teachings and

pra ctic es every me mb er is

bou nd by oa th to kee p

secret or private.

* Memb ers have secret grips,

secret passwords, secretslutations and secret signs

of recognition.

* It has a 144-member body

called The Militia which

A M O R C l i t e r a t u r e

describes as constituting

the real secret organisa-

'ion within AMQRC.Among its functions.is to

pro tec t the re#l tea ching s of

AMORCs Response

* A M O R C h a s s e c r e t

teachings but it is not a

secret society

* Secrecy means "und er*

cover and has no sinister

con nota tion.

* Federal Government Cir

cular on secret societies andthe 1979 Constitution do

not support the view that

AMORC is a secret society.

* AMO RC advertizes itself int h e n e w s m e d i a , i t s

members are known and it

keeps a register of members

so it cannot be described assecret.

Judges Verdict

Defendants have failed to prove

that AMORC is a secret society.

* AM OR C has secre t

teachings but it does not ex

ist for secret purposes.

* Even Christian s ope rated in

se c r e t d u r i n g R o m a n

per secution but that did notmake Christianity a secret

society.

* Every organisa tion has its

entry regulations, or do the

defendants expect AMORC

to just throw its doors open

to every Tom, Dick and

Harry?

Uu

the organisation.

* Supreme Grand Secretary

of World-wide AMORC,

A r t h u r P i e p e n b r i n k ,

defines Rosicrucian in the

Merit S tude nt En cyclo pe dia

(1979 Edition) as a secret

mystical organisation...

* An AMORC witness said

the organisation used to be

a secret society in the 17th

century because of official

persec ution.

* Even though privacy has

now been substituted for

secrecy , the essence of

the meaning has not chang

ed.* AMOR C refused to tender

its register of members in

oourt because it said it is a

secret docu ment.

* People can resign their

membership of AMORC

without adverse conse

quences, though they are re

quired to keep the oath in

terms of what they were

supposed to keep secret

while members.

* The organisation no longer

u s es s e c r e c y b u t

privacy in recognition of

changing times. Even the

Bible has various transla

tions because words do

diange meanings.

* Federal Government cir

cular on secret societies did

not consider AMORC a

secret society.

People can withdraw from

AMORC because 1st defen

dant (Awoniyi) even said lie

talked with ex-members of

AMORC. It is malicious of

defendants not to recognise

the change AMORC lias

made from secrecy to

privacy.


5/18

Occult

AMORC is an occult organisation

because;

* AMO RC descr ibes i t s

Rosicrucian Digest

magazine as the leading

metaphysical and occult

magazine...

* AMO RC says the lectures

in its Temple Monographs

contain the most complete

pre senta tion o f all occult

laws and principles as hand

ed down by the masters

through the ages.

* AMORC witness said be

pr ac tis es co mm un icat io n

with the dead. (Necroman

cy). AMORC also endorsesaurology, a form of divina

tion. Both necromancy and

astrology are forbidden by

the Bible in Deuteronomy

18:9-11.

* AMOKC lias other prac

tices which are abominable

to Biblical Christianity:

telepathy, psychometry,

clairvoyance, astral projec

tion, and mental sugges

tion-

AMORC Deceives the

PublicAMORC deceives the public

deliberately regarding its true

teachings

* It says publicly that its

teachings do not interfere

with the religious freedom

of its members, and that

even Christians can join.

But some of its teachings

contradict basic Bible doc

t r ines and at tempt to

discredit the Bible. For ex

ample, in direct contradic

tion of the Bible, AMORC

book says:

- Jesus was born by gentiles

- Jesus did not claim to be

the Messiah

- the genealogy of Jesus in

the Bible is not factual

but contr ive d ___*

* A M O R C h a s o c c u l t

teachings but it is not an oc

cult organisation.

* Occult as used by AMO RC

does not have any devilishconnotation. w

* Some of t!ie practic es

described as satanic are

beneficial to peo ple and

were practised in the Bible.

e.g.- The three wisemen were

astrologers

- Jesus practised astral-

pro jec lior. when he ap

peare d to his disc iples in

an enclosure after hisresurrection

- The gift of prophecy in

the Bible is the same as

AMORCs psychometry-

* AM ORC publications were

quoted out of context.

Defendants cannot mean

ingfully investigate the

order because they are non-members.

* Even some Jews still do not

believe in Jesus so why

should it sound strange that

AMORC holds an opinion

different from the Bibles?

* Organ isations have various

forms of ceremonies and

AMORC ceremonies there

fore do not make the order

necessarilv religious

"Jesus was not the first

son of God to be born

of a virgin.

* AMO RC says publicly that

it is not a religion, but

priva tely the orde r has all

lhe elements of a religion

including holy temple,

p ra y e r s , se rv ic e s an d

rituals. The order also

believes in a sup rem e being

which it calls God or

Cosmic Mind_____N

A M O R C has o c c u l t

teachings but it is not an oc

cult organisation in the

sense of dealing with

demons, etc. AMORC

meaning for occult is not

sune as used bv defendants.The practices condemned

by d e fe n d a n ts (e .g .

psychome try , clai rvo yan ce,

e t c) a r e product s of

research by AMORC. They

are based on natural

sp i r i t ua l l aws which

AMORC lias investigated

because the ord er doc s not

be lieve fa ith a lo n e isenough. The Bible which

defendants say recommend

faith only is man-made butdefendant s fo l low i t

slavishly and are therefore

isirron -minded.

* Defendants misinterpreted,

misquote and mutilated

por tio ns o f A M O R C s

boo ks with a malicio us in

tent to destroy the Order.

* A MOR C legally registered

with objective to propagate

natural spiritual laws. In so

far as the organisation docs

not deviate from this objec

tive it cannot be said to be

deceiv ing the publ i c .

AMORC does not claim to

he a Christian organisation.

So wh oever is attr ac ted )>

the organisation is free to

be a mem ber and be ta ug ht

AMORC principles.* The word satan connotes

anti-god and is not ap

pro pri at e fo r AM ORC

because no AM OR C boo k

condemns God. Members

are instead advised to

follow him.

* Delibe rate lying or deceit is

satanic because satan is thefather of lies. (John 8:44).


6/18

-o **XJys -3 = 06 ^c 5 - o ^s - D ? E C = ,S=.-


7/18

Excerpts From the Judgment

* Take the incident in Zaria, the burning of Odd-Fellowshall. The defendant had asked a question, RosicrucianOrder (AMORC) - Bedfellows with Satanic Cults? Heset out to prove that the plaintiff, AMORC is a satanic

cult like Odd-Fellows and Ogbonis. That proof con

sisted in his deciding to behave like a busybody to findout odd things about AMORC. Firstly, he considered

Odd-Fellows and Ogbonis sinister groups and becauseplaintiffs branch in Zaria , the Osiris Lodge, was using

the same hall, he considered them to be a sinister groupalso. He went so far to relate the discovery of human

skull to AMORC by implication and called his friend towitness that AMORC books and other equipment werethere. He also asked his architect friend to give him a

plan o f the burn t area . 'All his activities showed interest

beyond that of a Reverend gentleman desirous of in forming his reading or hearing public of certain evil

because nothing was emphasized about Ogbonis orOdd-Fellows which also used that hall. The plaintiff,

AMORC was connected to this incident to prove that

and to tell the public that it is satanic.

* Besides, there is no rule that everybody who worships

God must believe everything in the Bible, or that theplaintiff AMORC professed to believe in everything the

Bible says.

* What the defendants did was not to show that the plain

tiff AMORC is not doing what it told the public that itstands for but, to try and destroy the plaintiff

-AMORC, in the eye of the public by pretending thatthey are trying to save the Christians and portraying the

plain tiff as evil and against God. The defendants forgetthat the world or even the Nigerian or Calabar public isnot limited to Christian occupants but there are dif

ferent shades of opinions and beliefs. What is commonto the public is that it will shun everything known to be


8/18

evil or satanic. Therefore to refer to the plaintiff as evil

or satanic, the defendants were inviting the public ingeneral to shun the plaintiff, AMORC as demonic anddreadful.

The 1st defendant had said that he was doing a duty tohis friend who was misled by the plaintiff -AMORC,and not motivated by malice or religious intolerance topublish the articles against the plain tiff , AMORC. As a

Christian Minister, he said he was committed to truth

and it was his duty as a minister of Christian Religionnot only to preach the truth but expose falsehood in the

interest of the public. He said that he was motivated bythe love for his friend who was misled bythe plaintiff, and love for thousands of young people

who are being misled by the plaintiff as his friend. Hewas further motivated by his sense of duty, love and service to humanity because he knew that many people

were being misled, hence he wrote the truth about the

plaintiffs - AMORC. These in my opinion are wordsmeant to attract members to his church or deprive theplaintiff of members but they mean practically no thingto the ordinary Nigerian.

Besides, who appointed the defendants champion o f theChristian religion? And in spite of the fact that he ad

mitted that even the Jews, the bro thers of Jesus do not

believe in him or in his doctrine and that there are many

religions in the world today who do not accept Chris

tianity and are still trying to attract members of thepublic to jo in them , he picked on AMORC to launch hisattacks. Far from looking into the aims and objectives

of the plaintiffs - AMORC and trying to find outwhether these are being pursued, the defendants in myopinion became very narrow-minded in their views and

are fanatical in their faith and therefore to some extent

intolerant and opposed to other peoples views. Accor

ding to them, the plaintiff ought not to hold a different


9/18

view about life, and about the universe as a whole. They

should close their study of or on everything not recommended by the Bible and should not in any way criticisethe Bjble. Unless the plaintiff accepted what-ever theyconsider the Bible to say, hook, line and sinker, the

pla in tiff - AMORC is a satan or satanic organisation.

What and who gave the defendants such authority to bethe judge of others in this world or the plaintiff in par

ticular?To say that God has condemned man to faith and tha*man should not study and have the benefit of what is

likely to improve his stay on earth , is to say the least, an

unfortunate idea of a primitive or underdeveloped

mind. After all said and done, the Bible was written by

human beings to suit the purpose of the time. No Godspoke to the writers. They studied events and put themdown in readable form. Jesus himself never knewanything about Christianity if the record called the Bible

is to be taken seriously on this point. Therefore, he wasnot a Christian. Christianity could be traced to thegroup who believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ

when he was on earth. Those people belonged then tothe Jewish nation. As such, they were persecuted and

hunted down by the Roman masters and rulers ofPalestine at the time. Even so in later years, the Roman

accepted Christianity, the religion of the slaves as a

natural religion and spread it all over the world, while

building churches to the glory of God and writing whathas come down to us as Bible and the words of God. Ifthese facts are right as it may be from history what is allthe talk of somebody having a different opinion aboutJesus being a satan about? What does it matter if the

Rosicrusians say that Jesus was a Gentile and not a Jew

and that his parents as well as himself were Rosicru-

cians? It merely adds to the knowledge of the readers

and give them food for thought. I do not think it hasmade them satanic in any way or anti-god organisation

in the eyes of God.


10/18

* None of the plaintiffs books mentioned and cited by

the defendants counsel sets out to criticise the Bible as abook . They merely expressed views from th eir studieswhich run contrary to what the Bible says or teaches.The Bible is built on faith according to the defen da nts

which usually do not work out in practice or apply toreasoning or common-sense. The plaintiff publicationsaccording to them are the result of studies of Natural

Laws and Spiritual Laws. Even though the books appealmore to reason and to practical test there is no reasonwhy they should not exist side by side with the Bible, the

one complimenting the other. None of the plaintiffsbooks has set out to prove the Bible wrong. They merely

gave the other side of the coin while recognisingJesus as the great master and teacher of spiritual well

being o f man that ever existed on this earth . If 'the Bibleliad hidden or left out other facts concerning Jesus, it i.s

not an attack on him or the religion which his followers

founded. It is an extension of the knowledge of himwhich the plaintiff considered useful for their studies as

distinct from attacks on the religion of the defendants.

That this other view annoyed the defendants to call the

pla in ti ff nam es some of which are extremely

defamatory is the decision of the defendants who arenot ready to tolerate other views like the Mediaval

Europe on Christianity. If viiat is so then the names hecalled the plaintiff which are defamatory cannot be said

to be comments or fair. After all, the plaintiff did notsay that it was writing its books to the Christian public,then why did the defendant as a Christian (as he said)

feel he was ordained to champion the cause of the Christians as protector of the faith?

* That one man can study with better understanding and

another cannot does not mean that the study in itself is

bad. This is what the defendants unfo rtunate ly havedone. They condemned the studies with very strong


11/18

words not because they have proved the uselessness of

the studies but because a man-made book as the Biblelias asked that Christians should depend on faith for

everything and not acquire such knowledge. Because the

plaintiff has set itself to study and practise these thingsthe defendants launched a wild attack on it, called the

studies and the plaintiff satanic, demonic and ungodly.

Even where the plaintiff has said that it is not an occultsociety but have occult teachings in their schedule the

defendants still said so long as occult is mentioned intheir books and their teachings they are occult society.

* In the same way the 'plaintiff says tha t it is not an occult

organisation even though it recognizes and teaches it as

a science but because mention is made of occult in its

books the defendan ts insist that it is an occult organisation.

* I do not see what duty the 1st defend ant had to theChristians who are not members of his church more

than the numerous Christian Bishops and Priests allover the country. His write-up ot and concerning the

plain tiff was no comment bu t a calculated deliberate a ttack on the plain tiff without the least provocation . Whyshould a citizen of Nigeria not have different opinion onanything provided that he keeps within the law par

ticularly the law of libel? If the reference to the plain tiff

as satanic organisation or occult is because the defen

dant considered that the Bible forbids man from tryingto acquire the knowledge which it tried to teach or

disseminate is comment (which it is not) that comment isnot fair but mischievous or malicious.

* I do not know what interest the public had if so many

people are already in AMORC. Therefore what ever the

1st defendant wrote was activated by malice and desireto destroy and gain from the destruction of AMORC.This attitude of the 1st defendant permeated all the ar

ticles he wrote of and concerning the plaintiff.


12/18

* On the totality of the evidence before me, I hold that the

defendants have not proved any of the allegationsamounting to unprovoked libel against the plaintiffAMORC. The human 1st and 2nd defendants know

nothing about the world around them and the beautiesof being created to occupy it. They know nothing aboutChristianity if they exhibit ignorance of the persecution

of the Christians first, by the Jews who did not acceptthem, then the Romans who forced them to operate in

secret places like the cata-combs of Rome, yet they aredefending Christianity. They did not know thateverything was created by God and man in particular

was created by God in His own image with a free will toknow himself and everything about him in the universe.In knowledge, they behave like a frog sitting on .the

branch of a tree dangling its legs about, little knowinghow far those legs are from the ground. They studiedthe Bible blindly and follow whatever is in it slavishly.They cast people e.g. the plaintiff, AMORC in their lit

tle moulds and in their restricted biblical injuctions according to them without knowing that this world is a far

more beautiful place for everybody and the Bible still aworth while friend if properly studied. They did not

ever, know the main religious wars and Christianpersecutions which have led to the founding of many . f

the states of U.S.A. They did not know that some of thepeople whose knowledge the world benefits today were

branded witches and wizards and some stoned and kill

ed and others sent to th e gallows for heresy or given thehemlock for propounding a philosophical theory

calculated to corrupt the youths like Socrates, yet theknowledge they had and left for us shows the wondersand revelation of God. I dare say if people had listenedto the defendants own brand of biblical injunctions,

men would not have flown in an aeroplane, sail on the

qceans and fly in and out of the moon as is being done

today. If the defendant considered that nobody has ac

tually invented anything without studying the law of


13/18

nature and getting at the knowledge with which the

thing is discovered as an invention, then they should

realise that there is so much about God and His waysthat man is given the power to know through studies.Their attacks on the plaintiff - AMORC is the result ofundeveloped minds which ascribe to any new thingwhich the less informed cannot understand and

therefore sees it as the work of satan, devil, witch or

some lesser gods.

The Counsel for the defendants stated that the plaintiff

have been inviting members of the public to join their

organisation. That is true but what has not been sup

ported by evidence is that pla in tiff, AMORC had in that

invitation as it calls it, (but which ought rightly to becalled advertisement) invited Christians in particular.TTiere was no such evidence either by the plaintiff

(AMORC) or the defendants. Even if there was, are all

the Christians under the defendants protection? Has hegot the mandate to decide for them what organisation

they as Christians should or should not join? If the so-called Christians decided to join AMORC, was it right

for the defendants to publish invectives against the

plaintiffs and immoral and debasing things against itsleader Mr. H. Spencer Lewis? Such publication surely

cannot be considered as being done for public interest.It was deliberate attempt to employ foul means todissuade or discourage the would-be members of theplaintiff, AMORC, from becoming members in thepla in tiffs o rg anisation.

The 1st defendant is too little a man in the Christianpriesthood to talk of defending th e fa ith. If his fa ith isagainst acquisition of knowledge as the plaintiff said,

for the advancem ent, progress and better understandingof life on earth, then he belongs to another age when

man was a slave to dogmas and decrees of Christian

bigots or fanatics.


14/18

The plaintiff-AMORC says it believes in God and \v:

Jesus as the greatest master. That he was not a Jew or

was born a Gentile or his parents were members of theGreat Brotherhood with headquarters in Egypt areeither facts or opinion which has nothing to do with theteachings or activities which made Jesus great. The

defendants are opposed to reason and opposed blindly

everything which answer, they cannot find in man madeBible which itself is a result of investigations and researches. Are the defendants saying that investigations ana

researches into the Bible have ceased or should cease or

that those who from their researches and investigationshold different views to what are stated in the Bible, are

satanic and of satanic cult? The claim of the defendantsof interest to protect all that is in the Bible cut them outas narrow-minded and peddlers in blind faith. I do not

believe that matters on which the pla in tiff had written in

their books are religious matters.

The unlawful method and malicious attacks which thedefendant launched on the plaintiff show that they

know nothing o f the plaintiff - AMORC and were out todissuade others with lies and unproved facts from

becoming it mem bers, or to get them tx> join their new

brand of Christianity. They have admitted liability for

the libel and have put up defences of truth, fair-

comments and qualified privilege. They have not beenable to prove any of these defences to the satisfaction of

this court. They have admitted that many things stated

in the Bible are not tenable today, they have based theirlibellous imputation on the plaintiff on the prohibitionof the Bible as if it has legs, eyes or judgment exceptwhat man ascribes to it.


15/18

DISAPPOINTED?

As an interested party in the case between AMORC andECWA Productions Ltd., I was personally present in courtfor every session from the day the plain tiffs opened their case,till the day the judgement was pronounced. I heard each

witness testify. I watched each witness cross-examined. Inoted with keen interest the judges comments and reactions.

My first-hand knowledge of the entire proceeding therefore

made me vulnerable to the judgement that was read. By thetime I had listened with rapt attention through the first

quarter of the six-and-a-half hour reading, it was clear what

the conclusion was going to be. My prayer then was: Lord,what will happen to Your honour - Your mighty and gloriousName which the defendants profess and rely upon?

Then came the final paragraphs of the jugdement: Having found the defendants liable for the libel on the

plaintiff, AMORC, I award Nl,000,000.00 (one million naira)to the plaint iff as general damages ... Judgem ent is for the

plaintiff, AMORC.I was shocked! My spirit drooped. I felt like the disciples

probably felt the night the Jewish authorities seized Jesus and

appropriately dealt with Him, terminating His religiousfanaticism and intolerance by way of a most humiliating

public execution.

Then the Spirit of the Lord began to whisper His words ofcomfort and reassurance:

We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed,

but not despairing; persecuted, b ut not forsaken ; struck downbut not destroyed . . . (2 Corinthians 4:8, 9).

"For M y thoughts are not your thoughts, neither areyour ways M y ways, declares the LOUD. For as the

heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways

higher than your ways, and My thoughts than yourthoughts . . .


16/18

Then also was a recollection of instances in the scriptures,where the Lord appeared to delay or withhold a desired action, plunged His beloved into a state of apparent failure andhopelessness, only to pull a surprise later, and to re-establish- more firmly than ever before - His supremacy over the affairs of men, and His crushing authority over the forces of

rebellion.There was the case of Lazarus, brother of Mary and Mar

tha. Word reached Jesus that Lazarus was ill to the point of

death. Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.When therefore He heard that he (Lazarus) was sick, He

stayed then two days longerin the place where He was (John

11:5, 6, 11).How logical? Jesus loved Lazarus. Therefore when He

received an emergency call to save Lazarus life, Hedeliberately delayed for two days. When He was sure thatLazarus had been certified dead, He then started the journeyin response to the emergency call!

Strange! But purposeful!

Then there was the case of Jesus own crucifixion anddeath. His disciples prescription for His self-defence having

been rejected by Him (Matthew 26:50-54), they watchedhelplessly as He was arrested, humiliated, tortured and hanged on the cross. They believed He was the Holy One of Israel,their Saviour. They heard passers-by hurl abuses at Him saying, If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.Yet, nothing happened!

They heard the chief priests and the scribes deride Him say

ing, He saved others, He cannot save H im se lf. . . He trusts in God, let Him (God) deliver Him now, i f He takes pleasurein Him, for He'said, 7 am the Son o f God' (Matthew27:39-44). Yet nothing happened.

And He died! Friday, Saturday, then Sunday; yet nothingseemed to happen!

Cleopas best expressed the dejection and hopelessness of allthe disciples when he stood still, looking sad and told thatstranger :


17/18

We were hoping that it was He (Jesus) who was goingto redeem Israel. I nd eed ... it is the third day since those

things happened ... (Luke 24:17-24).

In cases cited, Jesus Christ saw it fit to lead His belovedones through a period of deep grief and humiliation -a situa

tion He could have prevented, but He didnt!

Strange, but purposeful! After their darkest nights, Heflooded them with the powerful light of His glorious might.He lifted their drooping spirits and gave them a brand new

perspective of who He was and what He could do! Or howelse would He impress upon them that He was (and still is)able to deliver not onlyfro m death, but also through death?

How else would they appreciate Him as the One who reignssupreme in the affairs of men?

You prayed. You fasted too. You put up a good defence.

You hoped for well-deserved victory. You were sure of it.Then you were declared the loser!

Disappointed?

My thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your

ways My ways, declares the LORD.Jesus said, ... I will build My Church; and the gates

of Hell shall not overpower it (Matthew 16:18).

It is better to fail in a cause which ultimately suc

ceeds, than to succeed in a cause which ultimatelyfails.

Gabriel Abikoye.

AMORC V CHA LLEN GE 912 /5 M /11-88


18/18

Documents

AMORC vs CHALLENGE: the Million Naira Judgement