Connect with us


Is South Africa an Enabler of Zimbabwe’s Decay?



Mr Tapuwa Chitambo

Tapuwa Chitambo, 13/01/2021

On 11 January 2021, Mr. Gwede Mantashe sparked a row with Zimbabwe, following a claim that the ruling ZANU PF party was trying to ‘blackmail’ the ANC in South Africa.

During the same period, a debate was raging in a WhatsApp group with the name – WHAT IS A LEADER – about the role of the Mojapelo-led South Gauteng Local Division bench in recognizing and enforcing a law that former Zimbabwean Minister Professor Jonathan Moyo aptly described as barbaric and satanic.

Honourable Mr Justice Mojapelo is the Deputy Judge President of the High Court of South Africa in charge of the South Gauteng Local Division which President Mnangagwa proudly credited for giving this draconian law a clean bill of health in June 2018,.

Mr. Mantashs may actually not know that the complicity of South Africa’s institutions has encouraged the ZANU-PF actors to abuse public power in the knowledge that they will get away with it.

Zimbabwe has been under sanctions for human and property rights abuses since 2001 but its neighbor, SA, has yet to openly acknowledge that ZANU-PF is an expert at scoring its own goals.

Mantashe suggested in the interview that Zimbabwean government officials were making threats in their diplomatic dealings with SA seemingly oblivious of many instances where the Zimbabwean government has openly and brazenly exported its tyranny to SA with no resistance at all.

The facts that have emerged are that on 22 May 2004, Mnangagwa personally hatched a scheme using his right hand sidekick Chinamasa to apply for the extradition of a businessman, Mr Mutumwa on trumped up charges.

This was to be based on the allegation causing export proceeds of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM), a Zimbabwean company, to be diverted to a SA company owned by Mawere

Notwithstanding the fact that on 39 June 2004, the extradition application was dismissed, Mnangagwa and Chinamasa achieved what they had failed to do using the justice system in SA, by issuing specification orders against Mawere, a South African citizen, and all his companies that employed more than 20,000 employees.

Subsequently, Chinamasa created regulations using the state of emergency laws allowing the government to divest and deprive Mawere of the right to appoint and remove directors of his companies and thus opening the window for Chinamasa to substitute the directors with his nominee Administrator.

Chinamasa appointed his crony, Mr. Afaras Gwaradzimba, as Administrator reporting to him directly. In an affidavit before the Zimbabwean court, Chinamasa openly told that court that he issued a limiting reconstruction order in relation to SMM without any involvement of Parliament and the judiciary.

Notwithstanding, his personal order became immediately operational. By using public power to change the control and management of a company, the successor company became an organ of state by the force of the law.

Using this corporate coup as a precedent, the government disguised as a company, formerly controlled by Mawere approached the Mojapelo led court suing Mawere on allegations of fraud in South Africa.

The question of whether the SA judiciary should have recognized the authority for SMM to litigate in South Africa that was born from the womb of a law that offends South Africa public policy especially given that the law and circumstances created by Mnangagwa and Chinamasa had no equivalent in SA.

This is because in South Africa, the control and management of a company as a going concern is vested exclusively directors appointed by shareholders and not by a public office bearer.

Mojapelo personally appointed Mr. Justice N. Willis to hear the case. Not only did Willis enthusiastically give audience to a captured company but he recognized the extra-territorial application of this repugnant law in SA.

He ruled in favor of the Chinamasa controlled company and in so doing set a judicial precedent that authority derived from a penal and confiscatory law of a foreign that is repugnant to the SA Constitution, notwithstanding the application of international law, can be recognized and enforced.

It would be unthinkable for a foreign mischievous government to be rewarded with a favourable order of court in a jurisdiction where the rule of law is respected.

The fact that this happened in a country where Mantashe is a Minister of government is significant.

In a conversation with Mr Mutumwa Mawere, Mr. Fred Mutanda, a Zimbabwean businessman, who had to seek refuge in December in the High Court last year after Dr. Nzenza, the Zimbabwe Minister of Industry and Commerce, had appointed a board of directors in a company in which the government had no shareholding to exercise this right, said about Willis:

“[1/12, 8:45 AM] Fred Mutanda: Good morning. It appears to me that the letter must be specific as to why it is alleged that the judiciary is captured.

The issue of diplomatic relations has nothing to do with the law. This is where I think the judge misdirected himself as this had nothing to do Wu the matter before the court.

To make it an issue for the Zondo Commission, the letter must use this argument for court capture

[1/12, 8:47 AM] mdmawere1: What do you think would be the best message to be included in the letter to demonstrate this important value add you make?

[1/12, 8:48 AM] mdmawere1: We have a community so that the outcome can also reflect the inputs of interested people in a matter.

[1/12, 9:20 AM] Fred Mutanda: Can I also have the judgment page on diplomatic relations

[1/12, 9:23 AM] mdmawere1: You mean the Willis Judgment?

[1/12, 9:24 AM] Fred Mutanda: Why did Mr Kyle withdrew from being your lawyer? Was he influenced by Zimbabwe?

[1/12, 9:25 AM] mdmawere1: He felt that the judge had already prejudged the matter and it was futile to proceed.

[1/12, 9:26 AM] Fred Mutanda: He was right

[1/12, 9:28 AM] mdmawere1: Do you also get the sense of frustration created by the judge in Rikki’s mind?

[1/12, 9:39 AM] Fred Mutanda: Certainly I get it

 [1/12, 7:23 PM] Fred Mutanda: Highlighting Judge Willis’ diplomatic comments emphasize that he was more interested in protecting a neighboring country. He ignored the law and the Constitution of South Africa when he adjudicated the matter.

[1/12, 7:24 PM] mdmawere1: What if he had a pre-determined outcome having been bribed?

[1/13, 06:47] Mr Mawere: It is the case that Willis J had this to say inside the Mojapelo led court:“I also pointed out that the setting aside of action done in terms of legislation in Zimbabwe could have major diplomatic implications. This would necessitate the joinder of at least one South African cabinet minister. No member of the South African cabinet had received any notice of such an argument to treat as pro non scripto in a South African court actions done in terms of the laws of a foreign state.”

In truth and fact, the Learned Judge failed and refused to deal with the question of whether the judiciary should be tolerant to the blatant abuse of power in a neighboring country.

The law in question, the Reconstruction of State Indebted Insolvent Companies Act, which was only passed by Parliament after the use of a decree in relation to SMM, is still alive and well. It is has been used in relation to Air Zimbabwe and Hwange Colliery Company Limited.

Although this law divests directors of the control of a targeted company, it is significant that the author of this law was appointed by Mnangagwa to be the Chairman of a company whose control and management is supposed to be solely vested with an Administrator appointed by the Minister of Justice and not the court.

Executive Secretary General @Varombo Movement. Secretary General @FOSMM. Human and Environmental Rights Activist


Ramaphosa officially opens SADC Extraordinary Summit of the Organ Troika of the Heads of State and Government



The Extraordinary Summit of the Organ Troika of the Heads of State and Government of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) plus SADC Mission in Mozambique (SAMIM) Personnel Contributing Countries (PCCs) and the Republic of Mozambique, was held virtually on 12th April, 2022.

The summit was officially opened and chaired by His Excellency Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa, President of the Republic of South Africa and Chairperson of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation.

The summit was attended by SADC Heads of State and Government, their representatives and members of the Troika of the Ministerial Committee of the Organ (MCO), Ministers from the SAMIM Personnel Contributing Countries, the SADC Executive Secretary and Head of the SADC Mission in Mozambique (SAMIM).

The progress of SAMIM was noted by the summit, as presented by the Head of the SADC Mission in Mozambique, and commended SAMIM leadership, including men and women on the ground for their sacrifices and commitment to the fight against terrorists acts in some parts of Cabo Delgado Province.

The transition of SAMIM from Scenario 6, (Rapid Deployment Capability) to Scenario 5 (Multidimensional Force), with a robust mandate was approved and the summit commended SAMIM Personnel Contributing Countries for their continued support by pledging capabilities and personnel to enhance the effectiveness of SAMIM operations, and urged Member States to continue supporting the mission.

The summit expressed its appreciation to the African Union (AU) and the International Cooperating Partners (ICP’s) for the support towards stabilization of the security situation as well as the socio-economic recovery and development of Cabo Delgado Province.

Expressing solidarity with the Republics of Botswana, South Africa, Kingdom of Lesotho and the United Republic of Tanzania for the demise of soldiers serving the Mission, the summit expressed words of comfort for those wounded in action.

The Republics of Zimbabwe and Malawi were commended by the summit for the spirit of solidarity expressed through delivery of the pledged donation of foodstuff in 3 support of Humanitarian assistance to the affected population of Cabo Delgado.

The Head of Mission was directed to coordinate with the Republic of Mozambique on the implementation of the comprehensive Integrated Reconstruction and Development Plan of Cabo Delgado.

The summit acknowledged the expression of gratitude by His Excellency Filipe Jacinto Nyusi, President of the Republic of Mozambique for SADC’s continued support, collaboration and cooperation towards attainment of sustainable peace and security in the Cabo Delgado Province.

His Excellency Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa, President of the Republic of South Africa and the Chairperson of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation, was commended for his leadership in steering the work of the Organ in pursuit of lasting peace, security and stability in the SADC region.

Mr. Tinashe Mpasiri and President Cyril Ramaphosa

Speaking after the summit, Mr. Tinashe Mpasiri, a member of Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL), an initiative of the Banking On Africa’s Future (BOAF), said, “Peace is not simply about the absence of violence. It is defined by the presence of fundamental liberties and the prevalence of economic opportunities. Justice under rule of law is a step towards prevalence of economic opportunities. Absent the rule of law economic development is a mirage and it is the duty of the citizens to ensure that public office bearers who have taken an oath to uphold, promote and defend the constitution of the republic, are held accountable for their conduct.”

Continue Reading


IDC’s Tshepo Ramodibe Cornered



In a remarkable development, IDC’s spokesperson, Mr. Tshepo Ramodibe, who was quoted in an article published by the Sunday World in relation to a judgement granted by Judge Motsamai Makume on 23 March 2022, in which he confirmed that, it was the IDC, a public institution, that had initiated the the litigation.

In a new twist, when Ramodibe was confronted to provide evidence that the litigation was authorized by the IDC and the use of public funds was justified, he threatened this publication, was evasive, abusive, refused and failed to provide the basis of the authority relied upon to prosecute the claim.

A dispute was registered as to whether a presiding judge could discuss a rescinding application without dealing with the challenge of IDC, Plaintiff’s authority to litigate in the case 13276/14.

The suit was instituted by IDC in the high court of South Africa South Gauteng Local Division. In relation to this challenge on authority, it would appear it has taken IDC eight years to furnish the resolution binding this public institution to this litigation.

Mr. Peter Smith said, “what is puzzling about this matter is that IDC commented about a judgement in which Mr. Tshepo Ramodibe could not supply the impugned resolution. This raises a question of how public funds can be used for litigating a matter without the public institution, obeying the law. Rule 7 (seven) is a rule of court that provides for a litigant to challenge authority and therefore place a bar or any next step be taken prior to a court of law granting leave or being satisfied that the challenging authority does exist. Having looked at the record of exchanges between the reporters of IniAfrica.com with Mr. Tshepo Ramodibe, the inescapable conclusion is that IDC and its attorneys Werksmans, clearly have no obligation to observe the law and rules of court because after seven years, IDC has failed, refused and neglected to play its part in complying with this requirement.”

Ms. Lara Geach said, she found the exchange between Mr. Tshepo Ramodibe and Mr. Peter Smith not only interesting, but thought provoking if not classic and below is the said exchange:

Tshepo RamodibeMon, 4 Apr, 17:47 (20 hours ago)
to [email protected], me, [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected], cl[email protected], Media, Chimwemwe, Tebatso

Mr Smith,

Please note that I have no concerns about the call made which was intended to get clarity on what was unclear in the emailed responses. All that is on record is a summation of the court ruling that confirmed the ruling court against the applicant.

The media is well aware of the matter and related court rulings. I suggest that any further enquiries in this regard be directed to appropriate legal platforms. The Judge and court that made the ruling is best placed to address any queries you may have.

I take confidence in the responses furnished by the IDC, as a public institution. Our Legal team and attorneys in the matter will guide any further interactions with your publication.


Tshepo Ramodibe[email protected]011 269 3106Head: Corporate Affairswww.idc.co.za0829910851Corporate Affairs

—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 04 April 2022 17:17
To: Tinashe Mpasiri <[email protected]>
Cc: Tshepo Ramodibe <[email protected]>; [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]; Media <[email protected]>; Chimwemwe Mwanza <[email protected]>; Tebatso Mokgoro <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [External Sender] Re: IDC V MAWERE & OTHERS

Dear Mr. Ramodibe,

Good afternoon,

I have been briefed by Mr. Mpasiri and I have listened to the audio of the conversation.
I am astonished that you refused to provide the required information for us to complete our work in the public interest.
Your comments are in the public domain about a judgment on a dispute that the IDC is being called upon to provide as required by the Constitution.
I need not remind you of the provisions of PAIA that provide for the open and unfettered disclosure of information in your possession when requested to provide it.
I need not remind you that s9(a) of PAIA gives effect to our constitutional right to access any information held by the State subject to the limitation in terms of s(9)(b)(i)(ii).
I am sure you will agree that s9(d) provides for the establishment and mandatory mechanisms or procedures to effect our right to access the requested information in a manner that enables our media platform to obtain access to records of a public body like the UDC swiftly, inexpensively and effortlessly as reasonably possible.
As you correctly stated, the judgment is in the public domain and such
s9(e) is instructive in that the requested information is beneficial to promote transparency, accountability, and effective government of public institutions by including but not limited to empowering the public and raising literacy on civics so that victims of injustice can exercise their rights in relation to public bodies like the IDC.
You will not doubt appreciate that our staff as citizens are under pressure to interpret the import of the judgment especially when regard is had to the fact that IDC does not advance credit to the retail public especially persons of foreign nationality.
We are at pains to understand the relationship between the IDC and the person of Mr. Mawere.
We also need to understand the functions and operation of IDC, especially with regard to the burning issue of authority so that the public can effectively scrutinize, and participate in, decision-making by public bodies like the IDC that affect their rights.
One of the questions that have been raised is whether persons of Zimbabwean heritage who are not eligible for BEE status can borrow from the IDC. This question is of significance because we have 28-year-old South Africans who were born in South Africa and are desirous of accessing credit facilities from development finance institutions.
Your tone in the conversation with Mr. Mpasiri was not only condescending but arrogance as if to suggest that a judgment granted in IDC’s favor should only be subjected to scrutiny in the courts when you were at liberty commending on the same.
I find it strange that when provided with the information regarding why Mr. Mawere could not have attended two hearings at the same time, you chose to attack Mr. Mpasiri’s bona fides and effectively the integrity of our platform.
I am writing this letter if you know where we are coming from as we believe in using the media to promote a culture of accountability and transparency.
I am still not sure why you called Mr. Mpasiri rather than respond to the questions that are critical for any reasonable person to establish whether the impugned judgment was tainted by fraud or not.
I have attached a letter addressed to Dr. Sanangaura dated 1 March 2021 seeking the same information that we sought from you today. Surely, logic dictates that it would not take more than a year for you to answer a simple question on behalf of a public body whether the IDC had authority to institute proceedings that relate to the Makume J judgment or not.

I look forward to your urgent response.

Continue Reading


Which country approximates this description?



Continue Reading