Former Lighthouse Leaders’ Allegations Raise Questions About Testimony, Court Cases and Financial Claims
A documentary by Go Church Belgium examining allegations against Lighthouse Chapel International and its founder, Bishop Dag Heward-Mills, has brought renewed attention to a dispute involving former senior church leaders, competing accounts of their experiences and a separate financial disagreement.
By Boakye Stephen, Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News Canada
26 OCTOBER 2026
Among those featured in the controversy are former Lighthouse bishops Emmanuel Oko Mensah and Lawrence “Larry” Odonkor, who have made serious criticisms of the church’s leadership. Their allegations have prompted questions about the organisation’s practices and the experiences of people who once occupied senior positions within it.
However, a fair assessment requires more than accepting one account at face value. The documentary’s allegations, the former leaders’ earlier public statements, relevant court records and the church’s response all need to be considered carefully.
Earlier praise and later criticism
In the documentary, Mr Oko Mensah says he was “brainwashed” during his years in the church and describes an environment in which God, the church and the pastor became closely associated in people’s minds.
The controversy has drawn attention to earlier remarks he made while being consecrated as a bishop. On that occasion, he publicly praised Bishop Heward-Mills, describing him as a patient father and expressing gratitude for the opportunities he had received.
The difference between the two accounts raises a legitimate question: how does Mr Oko Mensah explain his earlier expressions of gratitude in light of his subsequent criticism?
Nevertheless, earlier praise does not, by itself, disprove later allegations of mistreatment or undue influence. Equally, a later allegation should be examined through specific evidence and the circumstances surrounding it.
The significance of the two accounts therefore depends on their full context, the events that occurred between them and any supporting evidence available.
Odonkor’s allegations and separate legal proceedings
Mr Odonkor has also made strong accusations against Bishop Heward-Mills, including claims about the church leader’s motives and conduct. These are serious allegations and should be assessed on their evidence rather than the force of the language used.
A separate aspect of the discussion concerns Mr Odonkor’s legal history.
Reports state that a court in Antananarivo, Madagascar, convicted him in April 2023 of breach of trust in proceedings involving church funds and property. The reported judgment was delivered in his absence and included a two-year prison sentence and damages of 75 million Malagasy ariary.
A December 2025 Ghana News Agency report reportedly stated that appeals had been dismissed in May 2024 and November 2025. Mr Odonkor has disputed the judgment.
In a separate Ghanaian case, an Accra Circuit Court acquitted him in September 2023 after finding that dishonest appropriation had not been established. The Attorney-General subsequently challenged that decision on appeal.
The two matters must not be confused. They involved separate proceedings and reported outcomes. Neither, on its own, determines whether Mr Odonkor’s allegations about Bishop Heward-Mills are true or false.
Any publication of the legal history should be checked against the relevant judgments and current appeal records to ensure that the procedural position is accurately represented.
The disputed multimillion-dollar figure
A financial disagreement involving six former Lighthouse pastors also forms part of the wider controversy.
In 2021, a figure of approximately US$12 million was reported in connection with discussions about claims involving former pastors, including Mr Oko Mensah and Mr Odonkor.
Church lawyers reportedly alleged that the former pastors had demanded that amount. Their lawyer denied that a formal demand for US$12 million had been made, while a mediator reportedly explained that the figure arose during settlement discussions as a possible calculation.
That distinction is important. The reported information does not justify presenting it as an established fact that the former pastors formally demanded US$12 million or that money was the reason for their subsequent criticisms.
A settlement letter dated December 16, 2022, reportedly contained itemised claims totalling US$3,060,396 for six individuals. A separate column listed US$12,241,584, a figure calculated by multiplying each person’s subtotal by four.
The calculation was linked to Luke 19:8, in which Zacchaeus offers to repay fourfold what he had taken. The figures in the letter therefore reflect a calculation used in the proposed settlement document; they should not automatically be treated as proof of an agreed debt, an accepted liability or a sum that was ultimately paid.
The underlying claims reportedly covered categories such as alleged underpayment, compensation, severance and resettlement. Their inclusion in a settlement proposal does not, by itself, establish that every item was legally owed or accepted by the other party.
Church response also matters
Go Church Belgium has publicly disputed allegations concerning its practices and maintained that donations are voluntary. Its position, like the allegations made by former church leaders, should be assessed against available evidence.
The wider controversy raises questions about leadership accountability, religious authority, financial transparency and the experiences of people who leave religious organisations after holding senior positions.
A responsible examination should make room for documentary evidence, the full context of public statements, verified court records and meaningful responses from those accused of wrongdoing.
COMMENTARY
Religious disputes can quickly become battles of loyalty, reputation and competing narratives. Neither a former leader’s criticism nor a church’s denial should automatically settle the matter. Earlier praise does not necessarily invalidate later grievances, while a financial disagreement or unrelated court case cannot independently prove or disprove allegations about church leadership. The appropriate standard is careful verification, fair representation and a clear distinction between allegations, documented facts and judicial findings. The public deserves a complete account-not selective evidence designed to predetermine the verdict.
