As the Supreme Court dismisses Ziyambi Ziyambi’s Hwange Colliery appeal, President Mnangagwa’s henchman, Gwaradzimba defends the Reconstruction Act used against SMM as a perfect law.

In a dramatic week, the Supreme Court pronounced its opinion that a Ministerial order issued against Hwange Colloery by Ziyambi Ziyambi in 2018 was unlawful and void.

Ziyambi relied on the draconian law that was invented under his boss, President Mnangagwa, who has asserted under oath in an application launched by Professor Mupasiri on 17 December 2021 under Case Number CCZ 34/21 that the Reconstruction Act was constitutionally valid and the same reconstruction order that the Supreme Court has determined as a nullity in relation to Hwange passes the legality and constitutional muster.

The inherent constitutional crisis is self-evident but what may escape the attention of the public is the fact that President Mnangagwa’s Chief Enforcers, launched by Mupasiri in South Africa following the Malaba-led apex court’s attempt to exempt President Mnangagwa from being accountable for his admitted knowledge and involvement in the creation of this law that Professor Moyo once described as demonic and satanic law, and in it’s enforcement in relation to SMM using the agency of DMH Attorneys, the same law firm defending him in the Sybeth Musengezi party ascendancy attack, are using the prestigious SA law firm, ENS INC firm, to assert that the recognition and enforcement of this draconian Zimbabwean law in SA is lawful and constitutional.

In a group that Professor Mupasiri created to share his extraordinary experiences as a member of the Friends of Shabanie and Mashava Mines (FOSMM) group that was created as a platform to share insights using the SMM facts and circumstances as a case study to expose the role of the abuse of public power by state and non-state actors in undermining the rule of law, one of the members of the University of FOSMM, stated aptly as set out below that the Supreme Court ruling against Ziyambi has done more damage to expose the Malaba-led court that it is an enabler of President Mnangagwa’s deceitful conduct.

As stated above, in an open and accountable governance system, President Mnangagwa would be compelled to address the nation on the implications of the Supreme Court decision on his position in relation to the Mupasiri application.

Gwaradambia’s response to the SA litigation is set out in his affidavit that he signed on 3 August 2022 set out on this link

Did you know that a Zimbabwean law was recognized and enforced in South Africa using the agency of ENS Inc, a prestigious South African law firm?

https://iniafrica.com/index.php/2022/08/05/professor-mupasiri-exposes-gwaradzimba-and-his-masters-in-the-government-of-zimbabwe-in-the-high-court-of-south-africa/ – https://pol.boaf.cloud/post/315.

It will be noted that he deposed to this affidavit relying on the validity of a reconstruction order that the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has ruled that it was unconstitutional and invalid.

He asserts that the authority, power, right, and relationship with SMM Holdings Private Limited are based on the validity and enforceability of an extra-judicial order that Chinamasa, Mnangagwa’s partner in the coup project, issued in relation to SMM whose effect was to divest and deprive the shareholders and directors of its control and management.

Ir is trite that Zimbabwean laws have no extra-territorial application yet in this case Gwaradzimba on the advice of DMH is arguing that the plethora of SA judgments granted in relation to the post-state-induced hijack of the control and management of SMM and related entities should stand and be protected notwithstanding the admitted fact and now a judgment of the Zimbabwean superior court that the order in question is unlawful and void.

It is significant that in a pending application by FOSMM in SA, President Ramaphisa has asserted that he sees no Ukraine-style invasion of the SA jurisdiction when facts were brought to his attention that the existence of SA judgments in relation to any post-hijack of SMM in 2004 confirms the complicity of the SA justice system in recognizing and enforcing rights in relation to SMM that were acquired by the force of a law that President Mnangagwa has already under oath confirmed to be legitimate and lawful.

Against the above-mentioned Supreme Court judgment, the spotlight is now on the SA judiciary to pronounce its position on whether judgments that exist based on illegality and fraud committed using the agency of ENS INC can stand as lawful.

Equally, the impeachment proceedings under Case Number CCZ 27/22 launched by Mr. Mawere against President Mnangagwa that the Malaba-led court is trying frantically to dismiss take the spotlight.

In this matter, President Mnangagwa has been called upon to explain how he got access to the Mupasiri application that was never served on him.

He is also asked to explain his relationship with Manikai in relation to the affairs of SMM.

He is also being asked to explain how DMH was appointed to prosecute his opposition to the Mupasiri application when no facts exist that the AG had knowledge of the application and was involved in the appointment of the firm.

The constitutional question that has arisen based on the facts that are before the court is whether President Mnangagwa has title and jurisdiction to appoint DMH to act in a matter involving his conduct as President without the knowledge and involvement of the AG

It is worth highlighting that in relation to the Mupasiri constitutional attack, the Malaba-led court came to the rescue of President Mnangagwa by knowingly and intentionally exempting President Mnangagwa from responding to the allegations made by Mupasiri that he acted unlawfully by authorizing DMH to substitute the role of the AG in prosecuting his opposition.

DMH is a firm that is directly implicated in the SMM affairs in which public power that the Supreme Court has ruled as void and invalid was used to divest and deprive of rights was weaponized with impunity.

The public interest question that arises is whether the agency of DMH in prosecuting a matter on behalf of President Mnangagwa is not contemptuous of the rule of law.

Malaba seems to hold the view that President Mnangagwa must not be held accountable for his conduct in choosing a conflicted agent in prosecuting, his defence leading to the question of whether the relationship between Manikai and President Mnangagwa is in the interests of justice especially having regard to the undisputed fact that Mupasiri’s matters have exposed who the de factor AG of Zimbabwe is.

Notwithstanding, the fact that SMM under reconstruction’s authority was challenged, DMH remains the President’s sole legal representative.

Should this blatant disregard of the constitution by a sitting President be allowed in an open and accountable system of government? HELL NO!