BOAF NEWS – THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ZUMA V RAMAPHOSA CRIMINAL AND CIVIL MATTERS ON THE RULE OF LAW – MR TAFARA MOYO ADDS HIS VOICE

Mr. Tafara Moyo, a member of the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF) initiative to convert connections to community power in order to build a bank of knowledge to provoke, ignite and inspire active citizenship, was unaware of the similarities of the Zuma and Mawere applications to protect, promote and uphold the separation of powers doctrine, a fundamental tenet of the rule of law, that imposes a duty on all persons to ensure that no one is above the law.

It is the case that the Zuma cause in privately prosecuting the sitting President of South Africa for allegedly refusing, failing and neglecting to use reserved powers vested in him to cause an investigation into allegations that Mr Downer, the Special Prosecutor appointed by the NPA, to prosecute Zuma leaked Zuma’s medical records to a member of the SA media outside the four corners of the law and constitution.

it is alleged by Zuma who is represented by Adv Dali Mpofu that President Ramaphosa was informed of the matter and his failure to act constitutes conduct that is a breach of his oath and as such only a court can determine if he failed to fulfill his duty of office by not appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations that informed his court application for the removal of Downer as not fit to be a prosecutor in his matter.

Mr. Moyo was surprised to learn that a similar application is before the High Court of South Africa seeking to hold President Ramaphosa accountable for his refusal and failure to exercise the power and authority to investigate judges and lawyers for conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution involving the recognition and enforcement of Zimbabwean law that is repugnant to the SA constitution, SADC PROTOCOL AND TREATY, and international law.

Please read below:

[1/20, 6:13 AM] Tafara Moyo: Morning im interested in reading the constitutional matter
[1/20, 6:28 AM] mdmawere1: Please take notice that Dali Mpofu who I shared the application with used the same thinking that informed my application for the court to determine whether the President’s failure or refusal to investigate the allegation that rights acquired by the government of Zimbabwe in relation to SMM HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED (SMM), a company that was duly incorporated and operating in terms of the Companies Act, using a decree pursuant to the PRESIDENTIAL POWERS (TEMPORARY MEASURES) RECONSTRUCTION of STATE INDEBTED INSOLVENT COMPANIES ACT, regulations published in September 2004.

Acting in terms of this decree, an extra-judicial order was issued by the then Minister of Justice, Hon Chinamasa on 6 September 2004 whose effect was to vest the control and management of 26 juristic entities including SMM under his appointee as Administrator.

The legal and constitutional question that arises is WHETHER THIS DRACONIAN LAW and rights therein can be ASSERTED, RECOGNIZED AND ENFORCED outside the jurisdiction of Zimbabwe in terms of THE SA CONSTITUTION, THE SADC TREATY AND PROTOCOL, international law.
[1/20, 6:34 AM] Tafara Moyo: Im aware and privy to it.
[1/20, 6:46 AM] mdmawere1: Aware of the Mpofu and Zuma angles?
[1/20, 6:51 AM] Tafara Moyo: What I know is the case of SMM divestiment
[1/20, 6:51 AM] mdmawere1: Should we not share this in groups to provoke the creation of a circle to use this and ZUMA cases as references in addressing the apathy and civics illiteracy that is omnipresent in many human minds?
[1/20, 6:52 AM] Tafara Moyo: Yes we must share it