The Catholic Diocese of Konongo-Mampong says Rev. Fr. Samuel Adapore, whose suspension has triggered questions about his whereabouts and welfare, has been found at the Police Training Centre in Koforidua in Ghana’s Eastern Region. The Diocese disclosed in a statement dated 27 August 2026, issued in response to criticism surrounding the priest’s indefinite suspension a […]
The Catholic Diocese of Konongo-Mampong says Rev. Fr. Samuel Adapore, whose suspension has triggered questions about his whereabouts and welfare, has been found at the Police Training Centre in Koforidua in Ghana’s Eastern Region.
The Diocese disclosed in a statement dated 27 August 2026, issued in response to criticism surrounding the priest’s indefinite suspension a divinis.
The statement says Fr. Adapore “has been found at the Police Training Centre at Koforidua in the Eastern Region of Ghana.”
It adds that he had decided “on his own and singular volition” to be enlisted as a private person into the programme at the Training Centre and to undergo training to join the Ghana Police Service.
The Diocese did not state when Fr. Adapore arrived at the Training Centre or provide further details about his decision.
The Diocese’s clarification follows criticism on social media over the decision to suspend Fr. Adapore. Questions had been raised about whether sufficient efforts were made to establish his whereabouts and welfare before disciplinary action was taken.
There were also questions about the canonical basis and procedure for the suspension, including references to Canon 533 and Canon 1717, and whether the priest’s right to defend himself had been respected.
The Diocese says such questions are legitimate but argues that concern for the priest’s welfare and the need to maintain ecclesiastical discipline are not mutually exclusive.
“The Diocese does not object to questions about Fr. Adapore’s welfare, whereabouts, and safety — indeed, it has every reason to share that concern,” the statement says.
It cautions, however, that a public statement announcing a disciplinary decision should not be regarded as a complete account of all the pastoral, administrative, canonical and personal steps taken in a case.
Diocese defends its action
The Diocese says a bishop has responsibilities both to a priest and to the parish and wider Catholic community.
It argues that where a priest leaves his assignment without authorisation and becomes unavailable, the Bishop still has a responsibility to ensure that pastoral ministry continues.
“If a pastor leaves his parish, removes his belongings, stops communicating, and does not return, the Bishop cannot simply set the matter aside indefinitely because his location is uncertain,” the statement says.
The Diocese also rejects the suggestion that disciplinary action necessarily means a lack of pastoral concern.
It says the Church can seek to establish a priest’s whereabouts and welfare while at the same time addressing what it considers to be breaches of ecclesiastical discipline.
The Diocese acknowledges that Canon 533 §1 requires a pastor to reside in his parish. However, it says the provision should not be considered in isolation when assessing the circumstances surrounding the suspension.
“The full canonical framework must be considered rather than isolating a single canon,” the statement says.
The Diocese adds that the precise basis and procedure for a disciplinary decree depend on the facts of a particular case.
It therefore cautions against concluding that the action was unlawful simply because every aspect of the canonical process was not included in a public statement.
Questions over investigation
The Diocese also addresses references to Canon 1717, which concerns the investigation of information relating to a possible offence.
It says an investigation does not necessarily prevent church authorities from taking measures required to ensure the continued functioning of the Church.
“If a priest is absent and cannot be reached, the Bishop cannot leave a parish without pastoral leadership indefinitely while waiting for every detail to become clear,” the statement says.
The Diocese maintains that it has to balance the need to establish the circumstances surrounding a priest’s absence with its responsibility to provide pastoral care to the faithful.
On concerns about Fr. Adapore’s right to a defence, the Diocese says canonical justice requires fairness and that an accused priest must be afforded his rights under Canon Law.
It also says, however, that an inability to contact a person cannot indefinitely prevent ecclesiastical governance from taking place.
The Diocese says questions about whether appropriate procedures were followed, whether attempts were made to communicate with the priest and whether he was duly summoned would require examination of the actual canonical record.
It says such questions cannot be conclusively answered from a short public statement alone.
What the suspension means
The Diocese also seeks to clarify the meaning of suspension a divinis. It says the suspension restricts the exercise of certain priestly functions but does not mean that Fr. Adapore has ceased to be a priest or that the Church has abandoned him.
“A suspension a divinis restricts the exercise of certain functions; it is not a declaration that the priest has ceased to be a priest, nor that the Church rejects or has abandoned him,” the statement says.
According to the Diocese, canonical penalties are intended to safeguard ecclesiastical order, address scandal and encourage reform.
The Diocese rejects the suggestion that it had to choose between locating Fr. Adapore and taking disciplinary action.
It says concern for his welfare and concern about his canonical obligations can exist at the same time.
The Diocese says: “We want to know where our priest is, we want him safe, we want him to return to dialogue, and we must still address the canonical consequences of his unexplained departure.”
It describes those objectives as part of the responsibilities of ecclesiastical governance.
The Diocese has urged caution in public discussions of the matter. It says legitimate questions can be asked about the priest’s welfare, the process followed and the circumstances surrounding the suspension.
However, it warns against concluding, without evidence, that the Diocese is primarily interested in punishment.
It says there may also be legitimate reasons why details concerning a priest’s personal circumstances cannot be made public.
The Diocese says confidentiality must be balanced with transparency and that Fr. Adapore’s dignity and privacy should also be protected.
Diocese says priest is not its enemy
The statement rejects the portrayal of the Bishop and Fr. Adapore as being on opposing sides. It says both remain part of the same Church and that the Bishop retains a pastoral responsibility towards his priests even when disciplinary measures are imposed.
The Diocese frames the central issue as how to protect the priest’s dignity and welfare, safeguard the faithful and uphold Church discipline at the same time.
The Diocese says the question of Fr. Adapore’s whereabouts has now been answered. But says finding Fr. Adapore does not remove its responsibility to address the circumstances surrounding his absence from pastoral ministry.
It argues that the appropriate response is not to choose between pastoral care and ecclesiastical discipline.
“The proper conclusion is therefore not ‘find the priest instead of disciplining him,’ but rather: find him, care for him, establish the facts, respect his canonical rights, and at the same time fulfil the Bishop’s duty to maintain the order and pastoral life of the Diocese.”
The Diocese says this approach represents pastoral charity alongside ecclesiastical responsibility. It has appealed to the faithful to continue praying for Fr. Samuel Adapore.
The statement was signed by Very Rev. Fr. John Kyere, Chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Konongo-Mampong, and dated 27 August 2026.
The development comes three days after the Diocese announced the priest’s indefinite suspension, effective 24 August, over what it described as serious acts, including taking leave from the Diocese and abandoning his pastoral ministry without legitimate permission.
