Imagine going approaching a bank of justice only to be told that one cannot cash out from a promissory note of justice because the bank has insufficient justice in its vaults, and now turning to Makarau JCC who dismissed an application for her recusal because she sees no evil in what she did by recognizing and enforcing a draconian law, Mr. Kyle, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) initiative commented as follows: “A judge who is blind to her oath is no judge at all,” in relation to Makarau JCC’s unconscionable and capricious conduct in enabling the hijacking of the control and management of ZHL from its shareholders and directors.
This crime was committed inside the courtroom with a judge knowingly and intentionally enforcing a law that permits limiting orders to be issued by non-judicial persons.
The SMM order was issued and enforced without any judicial and parliamentary involvement.
Notwithstanding this mischief, Makarau JCC maintains that she was correct to make a finding that a specified person who deposes to an affidavit in support on behalf of a juristic entity would prevent the juristic entity from accessing the courts.
In this case, the alleged legal disability intentionally created by Chinamasa was used by the Court to cause the rights of THZH to perish.
The audacity of Makarau JCC to defiantly assert that in an s167(2)(d) as read with s167(2) constitutional challenge, a company like Africa Resources Limited (ARL), the sole shareholder of THZH should be denied access to justice speaks to the kind of justice that should never be associated with a constitutional dispensation.?
