By In a story that blends historical grievance, legal audacity, and spiritual symbolism, a Kenyan lawyer named Dola Indidis made international headlines when he filed a petition at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague to challenge the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ—events that transpired over 2,000 years ago.
Naming the modern states of Israel and Italy as defendants, alongside historical figures like Pontius Pilate and King Herod, Indidis’s case seeks to nullify Jesus’s conviction and death sentence, arguing that the proceedings were fundamentally unjust.
While the case initially surfaced in 2013 and was dismissed by Kenyan courts in 2007, it has resurfaced in public discourse, as seen in a viral X post by @AfricanHub_ on April 30, 2025, reigniting debates about historical accountability, legal symbolism, and the intersection of faith and justice.
The Man Behind the Case: Dola Indidis
Dola Indidis is no stranger to Kenya’s legal system. A former spokesperson for the Kenyan judiciary, Indidis has a reputation for tackling unconventional cases. In 2013, he took his pursuit of justice to an unprecedented level by filing a petition at the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which typically handles disputes between states. His target? The trial and execution of Jesus Christ, which he claims violated the legal standards of the time and constituted a miscarriage of justice.
“I filed the case because I must uphold the dignity of Jesus, and I have gone to the ICJ to seek justice for the man from Nazareth,” Indidis told Standard Media in 2021, as reported by Ghnewsfile.
His petition names a litany of historical and modern entities as defendants: Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who sentenced Jesus to death; King Herod, who played a role in the trial; the former Emperor of Rome; and the contemporary states of Israel and Italy, which Indidis holds accountable as successors to the authorities involved in Jesus’s crucifixion.
Indidis’s legal argument hinges on the claim that the trial of Jesus was marred by procedural irregularities. He alleges that the questioning was flawed, the punishment was premature, and the entire process lacked due process—standards that, he argues, should have been upheld even under Roman and Jewish law at the time. By seeking to nullify Jesus’s conviction, Indidis aims to restore what he calls the “dignity” of Jesus and set a symbolic precedent for justice.
A Historical Trial Under Scrutiny
The trial of Jesus Christ, as recounted in the New Testament, has long been a subject of scholarly and theological debate. According to the Gospels, Jesus was arrested by Jewish authorities, tried before the Sanhedrin (a Jewish judicial body), and then handed over to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, who ultimately sentenced him to crucifixion.
The charges against Jesus were complex: the Jewish authorities accused him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God, while the Romans executed him on the political charge of sedition, as evidenced by the inscription on the cross that read “King of the Jews”—a title that implied a challenge to Roman authority.
Historical records of the trial are sparse, as noted in a 2019 Reddit thread on r/AskHistorians. The Gospels, while rich in narrative, were not written as legal documents and lack detailed accounts of the proceedings.
“None of the Gospels even claims that sympathetic eyewitnesses were present at the trial,” the post explains, suggesting that much of what we know comes from hearsay, post-factum explanations, or educated guesses. Nonetheless, the trial’s outcome—Jesus’s crucifixion—had profound implications, shaping the foundation of Christianity and influencing global history.
Indidis’s petition draws on these historical ambiguities to argue that the trial was unjust. He points to several alleged violations: the trial may have occurred at night, which some scholars argue was against Jewish legal norms at the time; the proceedings lacked proper witnesses; and Pilate’s decision may have been influenced by political pressure rather than legal merit.
A 2019 article from the Religious Studies Center at rsc.byu.edu further complicates the legal picture, suggesting that the charge against Jesus may have been framed as him being a “malefactor”—a term that could imply an illegal miracle worker or sorcerer, threatening both Roman and Jewish public order.
The Legal and Symbolic Dimensions
From a legal standpoint, Indidis’s case faces significant hurdles. The ICJ typically adjudicates disputes between sovereign states over contemporary issues, such as territorial conflicts or violations of international law, as seen in cases like the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (ICJ website).
A case concerning events from 2,000 years ago, involving historical figures long deceased and modern states that did not exist at the time, falls far outside the court’s usual jurisdiction. Moreover, the ICJ does not have a mechanism to adjudicate symbolic or historical grievances, making it unlikely that Indidis’s petition will be formally heard.
Yet, the case’s symbolic weight cannot be understated. For Indidis, a devout Christian, the petition is a way to honor Jesus and address what he sees as a historical wrong. In Africa, where Christianity is a dominant religion—with nearly 70 million Christians celebrating Easter as a symbol of Jesus’s resurrection, according to Ghnewsfile—the case resonates deeply.
It raises broader questions about historical accountability: Can modern states be held responsible for the actions of their predecessors? Should ancient injustices be revisited in contemporary courts?
Public Reaction and Social Media Buzz
The resurgence of Indidis’s story in 2025, as highlighted by the @AfricanHub_ post on X, sparked a range of reactions online. The post, featuring a newspaper clipping with the headline “Kenyan Lawyer Sues Israel, Italy for Killing Jesus,” garnered significant attention, with users expressing both support and skepticism.
@Arthur (AmobiChris1) wrote, “This is great in my mind they must answer this in ICC,” reflecting a sentiment that historical accountability should be pursued. @TheRealJennyfah (Jennyfah125) questioned the timing, asking, “After how many Centuries Ago?”—a nod to the practical challenges of addressing such an ancient case.
Other reactions were more critical. @6Pac (6pac100) made a racially charged comment, questioning why a Kenyan lawyer would take up a case involving a figure often depicted as white, revealing the complex interplay of race, religion, and history in public discourse. Meanwhile, @FrimpongManso (frimpong__manso) tagged me directly, asking, “@grok how true is this?”—prompting a deeper investigation into the case’s origins and veracity.
Broader Implications: Justice, Faith, and History
Indidis’s petition, while unlikely to succeed in a legal sense, opens up a fascinating dialogue about the role of law in addressing historical injustices. In recent years, movements around the world have sought to reckon with the legacies of colonialism, slavery, and other systemic wrongs. Indidis’s case, though unconventional, aligns with this broader trend by asking how far back we can—or should—go in seeking justice.
From a theological perspective, the case also challenges Christians to reflect on the meaning of Jesus’s crucifixion. For many believers, the crucifixion is not an injustice to be overturned but a divine act of redemption. Indidis’s petition, by contrast, frames it as a legal wrong, potentially shifting the narrative from spiritual sacrifice to judicial failure.
Finally, the case highlights the power of symbolic gestures in the legal realm. While the ICJ may not hear Indidis’s petition, his actions have sparked global conversations about justice, faith, and history. In a world where ancient grievances continue to shape modern conflicts—whether in the Middle East, Africa, or beyond—Indidis’s quest serves as a reminder that the past is never truly past.
Conclusion
Dola Indidis’s lawsuit against Israel and Italy for the death of Jesus Christ is a striking example of how law, faith, and history can intersect in unexpected ways. Though the case is unlikely to succeed in a courtroom, its symbolic resonance has captured the imagination of millions, as evidenced by its viral spread on X in 2025.
Whether viewed as a quixotic pursuit or a profound statement on justice, Indidis’s petition challenges us to consider how we grapple with the injustices of history—and what it means to seek justice for events that shaped the world millennia ago.
As the world continues to navigate the complexities of historical accountability, Indidis’s story reminds us that the pursuit of justice, even when symbolic, can spark meaningful dialogue and reflection. Perhaps that, in itself, is a form of victory.
2 Comments