If for what ever reason (s) the constitution is to be violated, the Exco should have sought for an amendment of the relevant section of the constitution or the church management should have made the appointments directly since the affected executives were not even elected in the first instance,they were appointed by the church management. By the above writer, You have been wrongly accused of violating constitutional roles, what will be your response?

The accusation of violating constitutional roles is incorrect. Our actions were in full adherence to the constitution and its established procedures for managing all executive positions, whether elected or appointed. The Executive Committee operated within its defined mandate, ensuring that all decisions regarding appointed executives were consistent with the existing constitutional framework. Therefore, neither an amendment nor direct management intervention was necessary, as no constitutional violation occurred. Send me the next one 📸