The President&DMH exposed by Mupasiri

On 19 December 2021, Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, a Harare resident, launched a landmark case in terms of s167(2)(d) and s167(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe seeking the Constitutional Court to determine whether the President’s refusal and failure to respond to his letter dated 9 November 2021, constituted a failure to fulfill his oath of office and whether his conduct as alleged by Manikai, his attorney, is consistent with his constitutional promise.

On 24 December 2021, the President responded to the application. Manikai, who was cited as the Second Respondent, opposed the application although no relief was sought against him.

Mr. Mupasiri said: “I only cited Manikai in the application given that my application was provoked by the scandalous and malicious allegations he made against the President. The President assumed office in November 2017 against a backdrop of widespread outrage against corruption. He has committed himself to fighting corruption without favor or prejudice. When he invoked President Mnangagwa in the ReconGate matter involving the outsourcing of the AG’s functions to the firm, DMH Attorneys, my concern of state capture was heightened, and could find no better options than to approach the court to allow Manikai to confirm that his allegations that President Mnangagwa was the driving force behind the demise of SMM Holdings Limited (SMM) using one of the most draconian laws in the world, I was expecting that Manikai would simply assist the court.”

He continued as follows: “This morning, an interesting conversation ensued in which the position taken by a judge who was not named in a letter addressed to Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, the Applicant, in a matter challenging the President’s refusal and failure to act in relation to a major corruption scandal that Manikai alleged was authored by President Mnangagwa.

He continued to state: “I was inspired by President Mnangagwa who on 1 August 2021 was reported to have stated in an article published by the Standard Newspaper How committed is Mnangagwa to eradication of corruption? – The Standard (newsday.co.zw) is as follows:

1. The fight against corruption requires a multi-stakeholder approach to succeed.
2. The government has a key and catalytic role play among other invaluable key stakeholders in the fight against corruption.
3. These other social partners include the media, civil society and the international organisations.
4. On that note he threw the ball literally back into the court of players other than his own government.
5. My government stands committed to the establishment of democratic, transparent, accountable, strong and efficient institutions in our great country.
6. The interests of our people and nation must always come first.

to launch this application in the Constitutional Court as part of my civic duty to build a governance system based on the respect of the rule of law. Notwithstanding the numerous warnings discouraging me from launching this application, I believe that history will be kind to me for being the first Zimbabwean after the introduction of the 2013 Constitution to seek to make the President accountable and as to make his choices and conduct subject to public scrutiny. For this, I have no regrets and believe that justice must prevail based on the truth.”

It was refreshing that a conversation ensued in a What’sApp group that I belong to based on the position taken by a judge who was not named in a letter addressed to Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, the Applicant, in a matter challenging the President’s refusal and failure to act in relation to a major corruption scandal that Manikai alleged was authored by President Mnangagwa.

It is not in dispute that Manikai on 27 March 2021, stated as true and fact that the decision to divest the shareholders of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMMH) was part of a fightback strategy following what he described as a major political fallout between Mawere and President Mnangagwa.

It is fact that Mupasiri wrote letters to both Manikai and President Mnangagwa on 8 and 9 November 2021, respectively, expecting a frank and candid record of the President’s state of knowledge regarding the malicious and scandalous attack by Manikai against the integrity of the President.

Manikai said that Mawere was punished for taking sides with Mujuru during the Tsholotsho power struggle and he justifies the destruction of so many jobs as a warning to anyone who stands in the way of the President Mnangagwa.

Following the refusal and failure of President Mnangagwa and Manikai to respond, Mupasiri approached the Constitutional Court to determine whether the alleged role of the President is consistent with his duties, especially having regard to the reality that under his Presidency, this repugnant law has been enforced in relation to entities like Air Zimbabwe and Hwange Colliery Company Limited.

With respect to Air Zimbabwe, the President openly justified his appointment of Chinamasa as Chairman of Air Zimbabwe at a time when the company’s control and management had been divested from the company’s shareholders and directors.

With respect to Hwange, it is not in dispute that Justice Mangota rebuked Minister Ziyambi for unilaterally and arbitrarily issuing a vacuous order against the company.

Ziyambi has appealed the Mangota order but the fact that this rebuke was made is significant in that for the first time, a judicial officer has spoken about this law that offends public policy to be regarded as law at all.

Ziyambi had approached the court to confirm and not determine the legality of public morality that permits the role of the court to be reduced to that of confirming Ministerial limiting orders.

It has turned out that Mupasiri when he learned that Manikai, a Second Respondent, in his application had opposed the application and asked the court to impose higher costs against him to discourage others from asserting constitutional rights as provided for in the constitution from using the intermediation of the courts; applied for the court to determine whether the opposition by the President was authorized especially having regard to the fact that the Attorney General was not involved in the engagement of DMH directly by the President.

Secondly, Mupasiri has sought the intervention of the Court to determine if Manikai is fit and proper to continue practicing law given the despicable and criminal role Manikai has played in undermining the rule of law.

To the extent that the President has sought to protect Manikai in his opposing affidavit, Mupasiri believes that it would not be in the interests of justice for his original application to be prosecuted without affording Manikai to give the court his own narrative in response to the facts that are now before the court.

It is fact that the matter has been set down for hearing on 9 March 2022 and Mupasiri has been directed by the Registrar of the Court to file his Heads of Argument to allow the Respondents to file their own heads.

Mupasiri in response has applied to set aside this directive pending the determination of his application challenging the authority to oppose his main application and also after the court has determined the challenge of the fitness of Manikai and his firm to act as an agent of the President in a matter in which his conduct and that of the firm are part of the subject matter of the dispute.

After filing and serving the Respondents, Mupasiri was informed that his applications are to be heard together with the main application resulting in an interesting exchange of correspondences between the Registrar and Mupasiri.

Mupasiri already smelling a rat and bias of the courts has refused to file heads in a matter that had been preceded by events that he had no knowledge of.

He argues that he never sought any relief against Manikai believing that as an officer of Court, the search of the truth and justice in its ventilation would encourage Manikai to come clean on his role in prosecuting a law that defies logic and is patently evil and satanic.

Regrettably, it would appear the highest court in the land is already being used as a weapon to defeat this landmark application that is in the interests of justice.

Below is a thread of conversations on this dispute that has allowed a judge of the Court to exempt the President and Manikai from complying with the rule of court.

[1/30, 8:52 AM] JUROL00059: [1/30, 7:32 AM] JUROL00059: That is a start. Have you read @⁨Prof Mupasiri⁩’s court application that has provoked a nameless and shameless judge to expose himself and the complicity of the judiciary is aiding and abetting corruption?
[1/30, 7:33 AM] JUROL00013: No sir …
[1/30, 7:33 AM] +27 79 448 7609: Our Prof e group anoita nezwei
[1/30, 7:33 AM] JUROL00059: Are you interested in learning?
[1/30, 7:33 AM] JUROL00013: 🙈🙉🙊
[1/30, 7:33 AM] JUROL00013: I am
[1/30, 7:34 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that the world is full of bullshit professors and yet the real professor of life is living it.
[1/30, 7:36 AM] JUROL00059: Please let me know so that I can share the response to this letter.
[1/30, 7:40 AM] JUROL00059: Should the platform not be used to promote and provoke new perspectives and not the vehicles used to get to statehouses?
[1/30, 7:41 AM] JUROL00013: Ndaraswa hangu ne latin apo bit it seems as if judge arikuti application iyi is not that urgent or groundbreaking so ED can respond innthe ‘normal’ mannr which can take years? Correct me pandaresva hangu sir
[1/30, 7:42 AM] JUROL00059: Do you want to read @⁨Prof Mupasiri⁩’s reply?
[1/30, 7:42 AM] JUROL00013: Perspectives work best WHEN one is IN state house i think…
[1/30, 7:42 AM] JUROL00013: Yes please kkk
[1/30, 7:46 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that the pathway to statehouse is the most treacherous and divisive one?
[1/30, 7:47 AM] JUROL00059: Read and let me know your thoughts.
[1/30, 7:52 AM] JUROL00013: Done. Prof is right apa something smells fishy. The judge SHOULD identify him or herself and give satisfactory reasons for his or her decisions.

This is why i say the best way to change things is to change the entire system. This matter will drag on and on until prof gives up or runs out of legal funds.
[1/30, 7:52 AM] JUROL00013: Not necessarily
[1/30, 7:53 AM] JUROL00059: Did you know of this development?
[1/30, 7:58 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that many citizens also don’t know what may be public in order for them to improve governance and be vigilant?
[1/30, 7:59 AM] JUROL00013: They don’t unfortunately. .. maybe we need a new type of newspaper kkkk
[1/30, 8:01 AM] JUROL00059: Should it be MAYBE or do citizens need information in order to decide what to do?

Are you not angry after you read the exchange?
[1/30, 8:03 AM] JUROL00013: I am always angry politically bcoz all this has been caused by Zanu pf
[1/30, 8:05 AM] JUROL00059: Are you interested in reading my thread with @⁨Prof Mupasiri⁩ on this matter?
[1/30, 8:07 AM] JUROL00013: Yes
[1/30, 8:08 AM] JUROL00059: [1/30, 7:24 AM] JUROL00059: After reading the Registrar’s letter, what would be your questions to the nation?

What should be the headline?
[1/30, 7:28 AM] JUROL00011: When a referee becomes one of the players in a contending team: The case of the Zimbabwean judiciary.
[1/30, 7:30 AM] JUROL00059: Do we have proof that the Registrar has assumed the role of the referee?
[1/30, 7:34 AM] JUROL00011: It’s there in that letter where he assumes spokesmanship of the Respondents and had already looked into the papers having his own determination prior to the court sitting.
[1/30, 7:37 AM] JUROL00059: What if the judge in motion is recommending that since the issues you raise can be conveniently dealt with in your own cause rather than outside it?
[1/30, 7:41 AM] JUROL00011: He can’t recommend that which the respondents must say in writing. Why does he want the respondents to answer to the questions raised in the two documents he mentioned?

The judiciary is conflicted
[1/30, 7:45 AM] JUROL00059: Is the word can’t the appropriate one? What if the judge says that efficiency and convenience are key and that your case falls or rises on your founding papers?

Is it not your founding case that the President violated his duties provoking you to seek the court’s intervention?

Is it not true that the burden to prove your allegations lies with the alleged and the Respondent has no obligation to you to disprove your case?
[1/30, 7:49 AM] JUROL00011: And that I gave to the same court.

It is clear in the letter by the judge and the one I received from Manikai that a tag team (respondents-judiciary) has been officiated.

It is not surprising if Manikai actually drafts those letters on behalf of the court.

It is not surprising if Manikai actually drafts those letters on behalf of the court.
[1/30, 7:50 AM] JUROL00059: Is this not an allegation?
[1/30, 7:51 AM] JUROL00011: It’s an allegation on Manikai and not on the judiciary
[1/30, 7:51 AM] JUROL00059: What evidence do you have to prove that your allegation is true?
[1/30, 7:52 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that the normal process is that a founding affidavit, is followed by an answering affidavit and then by a replying affidavit?
[1/30, 8:11 AM] +27 74 354 5808: You have a way of searching for the truth kkkkk. Very interesting. . So you are saying prof is powerless to change events as they are now?
[1/30, 8:12 AM] JUROL00059: What is your reading?
[1/30, 8:13 AM] JUROL00059: Another view:

[1/30, 7:52 AM] JUROL00022: What happened to the court application
[1/30, 8:07 AM] JUROL00022: Is this how the court operates?
[1/30, 8:09 AM] JUROL00059: Have you read this?
[1/30, 8:09 AM] JUROL00022: Yes
[1/30, 8:10 AM] JUROL00022: Why is the lead judge faceless and nameless
[1/30, 8:12 AM] JUROL00059: Is it not a fact that the identity of the judge is not disclosed?

How did this judge know about the existence of the 2 interlocutory applications?

Can or should litigation be conducted by correspondence?
[

1/30, 8:18 AM] JUROL00013: I think prof should seek to have his case handled by another judge
[1/30, 8:18 AM] JUROL00013: I’m commenting generally by the way. No legal training etc
[1/30, 8:18 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that for him to seek recusal, he must know the judge?
[1/30, 8:19 AM] JUROL00013: Yesssss. . Bit that might be problematic since the sid judge does not want to be known kkkk
[1/30, 8:19 AM] JUROL00013: Said*
[1/30, 8:22 AM] JUROL00059: Then how can @⁨Prof Mupasiri⁩ seek a remedy on something that falls outside his personal knowledge?

What if the opponent drafted the letter and connived with the Registrar as a strategy to win the case and ensure that the President’s state of knowledge on corruption under his watch or his buddies is never subjected to public scrutiny?

What if the opponent drafted the letter and connived with the Registrar as a strategy to win the case and ensure that the President’s state of knowledge on corruption under his watch or his buddies is never subjected to public scrutiny?
[1/30, 8:24 AM] JUROL00059: [1/30, 8:14 AM] JUROL00022: Why were the 2 interlocutory applications not saved to the court?
Litigation can’t be by correspondence hence my previous question as to how the court operates
[1/30, 8:16 AM] JUROL00059: Does the Registrar not expose himself by acknowledging the existence of served papers that apparently are in the possession of this faceless and nameless judge?
[1/30, 8:18 AM] JUROL00022: I have no idea as to the court processes and procedures.
[1/30, 8:19 AM] JUROL00059: But what do natural justice and the rule of law demand?

Would you expect a referee to be the coach as well?

Would you expect a referee to be the coach as well?
[1/30, 8:20 AM] JUROL00022: It demands fairness and transparency
[1/30, 8:23 AM] JUROL00059: Do you think the judge should read the papers and act on them outside the four corners of a court hearing?
[1/30, 8:26 AM] JUROL00059: [1/30, 7:51 AM] JUROL00011: It’s an allegation on Manikai and not on the judiciary
[1/30, 7:51 AM] JUROL00059: What evidence do you have to prove that your allegation is true?
[1/30, 7:52 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that the normal process is that a founding affidavit, is followed by an answering affidavit and then by a replying affidavit?
[1/30, 8:14 AM] JUROL00011: The proof is the letter which I received from the court.

Its contents bare it all

Its contents bare it all
[1/30, 8:16 AM] JUROL00059: Is there anything that proves that the court is approaching the issues subjectively?
[1/30, 8:19 AM] JUROL00011: Yes I agree but my application is a unique one with no precedence to refer to.

Everything is new, which may even lead the courts to revise their processes.

Even the elect in the legal profession is finding it new.

There is a need to remember that my Interlocutory application was rejected twice before being accepted reason being the court wanted time to research what it really was.

After their research and calls by some in FoSMM demanding reasons for the rejection, the courts eventually accepted the papers.

After their research and calls by some in FoSMM demanding reasons for the rejection, the courts eventually accepted the papers.

After their research and calls by some in FoSMM demanding reasons for the rejection, the courts eventually accepted the papers.

After their research and calls by some in FoSMM demanding reasons for the rejection, the courts eventually accepted the papers.
[1/30, 8:21 AM] JUROL00011: According to the letter, the court has already determined the matter before it even sits
[1/30, 8:23 AM] JUROL00059: Did the court not allow you to file the papers?
[1/30, 8:27 AM] JUROL00013: That is exactly the case kkkk
[1/30, 8:27 AM] JUROL00059: What is the case?
[1/30, 8:27 AM] +27 78 261 2454: Kurwadziwa na yellow nation kusvika pakunyora novel
[1/30, 8:28 AM] JUROL00013: That the opponent drafted the letter and connived with the Registrar as a strategy to win the case and ensure that the President’s state of knowledge on corruption under his watch or his buddies is never subjected to public scrutiny.
[1/30, 8:30 AM] JUROL00059: Should this not be tested with facts?
[1/30, 8:32 AM] JUROL00013: Well nigh impossible
[1/30, 8:32 AM] JUROL00059: Are you aware that DMH is representing both Manikai and the President?
[1/30, 9:52 AM] JUROL00059: [1/30, 9:12 AM] JUROL00059: [1/30, 8:20 AM] JUROL00022: It demands fairness and transparency
[1/30, 8:23 AM] JUROL00059: Do you think the judge should read the papers and act on them outside the four corners of a court hearing?
[1/30, 8:25 AM] JUROL00022: It should be at the trial.
[1/30, 8:26 AM] JUROL00059: Do you then smell a rat?
[1/30, 8:28 AM] JUROL00022: I will give them the benefit of doubt but with caution. Let’s first see how it goes at the trial.
[1/30, 8:30 AM] JUROL00059: What if the issues raised in the interlocutory applications are vital for the Applicant to decide whether he should amend his papers or abandon the cause?
[1/30, 9:01 AM] JUROL00022: From my little experience on the cases I have been involved in from the technical side. We receive papers from the litigant then we respond. If the litigant will then request clarification and or supporting documents based on our responses and we do so but if we don’t think it’s necessary, we don’t do so. Usually, such areas will become disputed by both parties at the beginning of the trial, and the party that fails to defend its position will bear the consequences. One cannot keep on amending an application or submitting unlimited interlocutors
[1/30, 9:08 AM] JUROL00059: Should the access to courts be limited and prescribed so as to prevent the courts from being provided with all the facts necessary to dispose of a matter?
[1/30, 9:52 AM] JUROL00059: [1/30, 8:36 AM] JUROL00011: It eventually did allow me to so which I did successfully on the 25th of January 2022 after a double failed attempt.

Had it been in the hands of some lazy legal minds, the interlocutory could have suffered a stillbirth at the hands of the supposed midwives of justice.

The court eventually saw the light.

The rejection is not in my words but in what is tangible.

When the second rejection was made, I went ahead to serve the same copies (2) of the interlocutory to the respondents which are shown by the two DMH stamping and DMH was indeed at the Concourt on the morning of January 25th, 2022 to query my serving of papers with no court stamp😂

When the second rejection was made, I went ahead to serve the same copies (2) of the interlocutory to the respondents which are shown by the two DMH stamping and DMH was indeed at the Concourt on the morning of January 25th, 2022 to query my serving of papers with no court stamp😂
[1/30, 8:39 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that your papers are before the court and were duly served to the Respondents?
[1/30, 8:54 AM] JUROL00011: I agree
[1/30, 8:54 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that no one is above the law?
[1/30, 9:01 AM] JUROL00011: I agree, absolutely
[1/30, 9:05 AM] JUROL00059: What is the import of the directions of the nameless judge?!
[1/30, 9:06 AM] JUROL00059: Does it not suggest that the Respondents are not subject to the limitations imposed on all litigants to abide by the rules of court?
[1/30, 9:06 AM] JUROL00059: Should the Respondents be exempted in the mind of the nameless judge?
[1/30, 9:10 AM] JUROL00011: He)she (judge) does not want to be accountable for his instruction and writing.

Even if there is a need to write for recusal of the judge from my case, I will end up writing for the recusal of the entire bench and call for Judges for hire like Judge Joe Brown😂😂

It implies that the judge did so under instruction that could be against the dictates of his profession hence his deliberate choice for his namelessness.

Judges are slaves too, exhibiting that there is no equality in the arms of government.

Judges are slaves too, exhibiting that there is no equality in the arms of government.
[1/30, 9:11 AM] JUROL00011: Not at all. Rule and regulation must be applied to all and fairly.
[1/30, 9:13 AM] JUROL00059: In this case, is it not the case that the nameless judge has already exempted the Respondents from responding to the allegations in your interlocutory applications?
[1/30, 9:18 AM] JUROL00011: It is evident that he did.

Who knows maybe one of the Respondents is the very nameless judge… it can’t be the whole CC writing the letter

[1/30, 9:22 AM] JUROL00059: Would this not constitute a malicious and scandalous attack on the judiciary?
[1/30, 9:26 AM] JUROL00011: Then the court must unmask the judge who did write to me to demystify that thought in not only my head but that of many discerning individuals who care about justice delivery.
[1/30, 9:27 AM] JUROL00011: proper justice delivery based on fairness and transparency
[1/30, 9:27 AM] JUROL00059: Do you agree that the rights of litigants in search of the truth are at the core of this leg of the dispute?
[1/30, 9:29 AM] JUROL00011: I agree
[1/30, 9:31 AM] JUROL00059: What should be the beginning of this discovery using your case?
[1/30, 9:36 AM] JUROL00011: The rejection of the interlocutory papers by the registrar of Concourt on January 20th and 24th 2022 when the registrar should be to accept and leave the courts to determine.