The Anglican Diocese of Harare found itself dragged through a decade of turmoil which ran from 2002 to 2012, by the actions of its sitting Bishop, Bishop Nolbert Kunonga who, for reasons, of which some are highlighted in this research, became intent on severing ties with the Church of the Province of Central Africa (CPCA). In the process Bishop Nolbert Kunonga formed his own Province called the Anglican Province of Zimbabwe (APZ) but, notwithstanding this, was determined to hold on to the properties that belonged to the CPCA. The build-up to the formation of the APZ, saw the Anglican Diocese of Harare clergy and laity being subjected to and witnessing the total disregard of the Constitution and Canons of the Province of Central Africa by Bishop Kunonga and some of those who were supporting him. This unusual development which did not conform to the often cited ‘quest for belonging’, caused a lot of bickering involving the Bishop, some clergy and some parishioners which culminated in an attempt to bring Bishop Kunonga before an ecclesiastical court on thirty-eight charges among them that of inciting murder.
The second half of the decade of turmoil, the years 2008 to 2012, was characterised by the persecution of CPCA Anglicans in the Diocese of Harare as they fought to regain their properties. The ‘doctrinal’ reason for withdrawing the Diocese of Harare from CPCA, as cited by Bishop Kunonga, that the CPCA was condoning homosexuality drew the ire of the state. The fierce fighting between the two Provinces, that is the APZ and CPCA, over control of the properties belonging to the Anglican Diocese of Harare, saw the police and state intervening but seemingly taking sides with Bishop Kunonga. By so doing the Anglicans in the Diocese of Harare CPCA ended up appearing as if they were a political outfit fighting the state in the guise of fighting for their properties.
The Supreme Court ruling of the 19th of November 2012 brought the matter to its finality when it ruled in favour of the CPCA and declared that Bishop Kunonga had no legal right to claim ownership or control of properties that belonged to an organisation (CPCA) which he had withdrawn from.