Nairobi — A court is in a dilemma how to handle a case questioning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and seeking re-writing of the Bible.

Lady Justice Joyce Aluoch, who was hearing the unique suit filed by judiciary spokesman Dola Indidis, asked where the respondents in the case are.

The respondents are Tiberius, the emperor of Rome between 42 BC and 37 AD, Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea during the time of Jesus, Caiphas, the high priest, Jewish chief priests, Jewish elders, Jewish teachers of the law and King Herod of Galilee.

In response, Mr Indidis, through his lawyer, Mr Michael Chemwok, said he had not served the respondents with the suit papers as required in law. It is not known how he is going to serve the papers on them to appear for the hearing of the case or even appoint lawyers to represent them because they all died many years.

He told the judge that the matter was urgent and ought to be heard and determined during the court vacation.

Mr Indidis said there was a need to move with speed to seek orders to declare the punishment meted out to Jesus 2000 years ago as illegal.

The crux of the case is that the arrest, torture and punish Jesus was unlawful and that it amounts to violation of his rights.

Mr Indidis, who sat on a bench outside Lady Justice Aluoch's chambers for most of the morning, also wants the court to declare that Jesus was and is innocent.

Depicted as a criminal

He complained that He is depicted as a criminal, even in the Bible.

And to buttress his argument, Mr Indidis quoted from the books of Matthew, Mark, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, among others, which he has attached exhibits.

Asked why he was insisting that the matter should be heard during the court vacation, Mr Chemwok said his client uses the Bible daily and thought there was a need for the court to set the record straight.

However, the judge ruled that the case is not urgent and directed Mr Indidis to take hearing dates from the court registry.

Dignity of Jesus

Speaking outside the courtroom, Mr Indidis said those who participated in the trial against Jesus didn't know that they were doing wrong.

He added that he was filing the case because it was his duty to uphold the dignity of Jesus. According to him, Jesus was charged with blasphemy and should have been punished by public stoning instead of crucifixion.

He adds that the selective and malicious prosecution violated Christ's human rights through judicial misconduct, abuse of office, bias and prejudice.