fbpx
Connect with us

Corporate Literacy

Critical Analysis of Coca Cola Beverages South Africa’s BEE Inspired Transfer of Additional 10% Shares to Its Employees – C2C Corporate Literacy Initiative

Brian Kazungu

Published

on

Brian Kazungu, 08/02/2021

Following an announcement by Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa (CCBSA) that it had transferred an additional 10% shares to its employees, members of the Connections2Communities (C2C) community using the theme What Is A Company, discussed the meaning and implications of such a move.

Critical points in the Press Release by Coca Cola were that:

  1. The 5% stake already held by employees will increase to 15% following the newly announced additional 10%.
  2. When including other partners with a BEE tag, Coca Cola Beverages South Africa will now be 20% black owned.
  3. It was also announced that Trade Unions will have the power to appoint two trustees to serve in the Board of Directors on behalf of the employees.
  4. According to CCBSA Managing Director, Velaphi Ratshefola, this was more than merely a scheme with financial benefits to workers but rather a real empowerment as employees will have Board Member representation.

Below is a corporate literacy discussion between members of C2C in their search for a shared understanding on matters of interest as well as in their pursuit for corporate excellence.

[2/7, 15:01] Mr Mawere: CORPORATE LITERACY 101 – Case Study 100. Corporate Identity under the spotlight.

It was announced that Coca Cola Beverages SA (CCBSA) would transfer an additional 10% of its shares to its employees.

What is nationality and identity of CCBSA?

[2/7, 15:13] +263 77 299 6425: Nationality of a corporate depends on its registration. If CCBSA is incorporated in SA then it will be regarded South African. However the parantage (DNA) of the company may reflect a strong line of foreign blood. Hence the reason for a purported black empowerment drive.

[2/7, 15:38] +263 77 603 2475: If employees are shareholders I would benefit by understanding how trade unions appoint directors. Whose interest will those directors serve? If any employee wishes to realize part of their shares as an individual, is that possible and if so when and how? These are question around what a company is.

[2/7, 15:48] Mr Mawere: Do you agree that a company is a creature of law? It is the company and not its relatives that exists as a separate and distinct entity. If the above is accepted, the CCBSA is a South African corporate citizen. Once incorporated, its umbilical cord is cut.

[2/7, 15:51] Mr Mawere: The announcement is clear. A trust whose beneficiaries are the employees will hold the shares. The trustees will be appointed by the founders to act on behalf of the employees who stand to benefit.

[2/7, 15:55] Mr Mawere: You ask, whose interests will the directors serve? As you may be aware, directors owe a duty of care to the company they serve. They owe no fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The trust will be entitled to two directors but once the directors are appointed, they cease to represent the trust but the company they serve.

Remember that the directors are part of the company and they possess the power and authority to act on behalf of a company.

[2/7, 15:58] Mr Mawere: You ask if any employee wishes to realize part of the shares as an individual and in so doing expose the need for this group. The correct construction is that employees are not shareholders in the new structure.

It is the trust that has a direct nexus to the employees. In turn, the trust is the registered holder of shares in the company. In short, none of the employees would be registered as direct shareholders of CCBSA.

[2/7, 16:47] +263 77 603 2475:

1. Shareholding. Very correct insights from a legal standpoint and yes, the beneficiaries are the trust which will hold shares in the company.

 The benefit to employees is indirect, and short of a dividend, an employee might get nothing out of this arrangement.  This is an empowerment scheme in which 15% has been issued to a trust not to employees.

Employee interests are now in the hands of the trust. An employee might never realize the benefit possible through leveraging shares as he deems fit in order to buy his family a home or feed himself during pension when he ceases to be employed?

The point is we need to be aware of these potential drawbacks as relates employee freedom of ownership of shares.

2. Directors

He who pays the piper calls the tune. The trade unions appoints these guys and therefore can disappoint them. The director therefore know who the master is. 

The article itself acknowledges that the employees would now chart the future of the company. Is that not implication that the newly appointed directors will bring in employee input onto the board?

I agree with the basic legal interpretation but have expounded further implications as I see them.

[2/7, 17:04] +263 77 299 6425: Yes I do agree but the cutting of the umbilical cord is somehow dependent on structure. In our case we have CCBSA which has a parent CCBAfrica which runs the affairs of the company in East and Southern Africa. In such a conglomerate set up, the operations of CCBSA may not be entirely independent of its holding parent.

The reason for the increase in the stakes for employees is something to digest also. It was meant to meet the provisions of the BEE Act as the government holds back the license for merger. It’s not a voluntary offer per se. There’s a forked tongue in the deal.

Brian Kazungu is an Author, Poet, Journalist, and Technology Enthusiast whose writing covers issues to do with Business, Travelling, Motivation and Inspiration, Religion, Politics, and Communication among others. https://www.amazon.com/author/briankazungu https://muckrack.com/brian-kazungu http://www.modernghana.com/author/BrianKazungu kazungu.brian@gmail.com @BKazungu-Twitter He has written and published several books covering various aspects of human life including leadership, entrepreneurship, politics, personal development as well as poetry and travel. These books are found on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/author/briankazungu

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Africa

IDC’s Tshepo Ramodibe Cornered

Julian Lipschitz

Published

on

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 editor@iniafrica.com, me, psmith@iniafrica.com, tmpasiri@iniafrica.com, lovemorec@gmail.com, alugumigiven@gmail.com, cleopas@dawnholdings.com, 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.

Regards,
Tshepo

Tshepo RamodibeTshepoR@idc.co.za011 269 3106Head: Corporate Affairswww.idc.co.za0829910851Corporate Affairs





—–Original Message—–
From: editor@iniafrica.com <editor@iniafrica.com>
Sent: Monday, 04 April 2022 17:17
To: Tinashe Mpasiri <tmpasiri@gmail.com>
Cc: Tshepo Ramodibe <TshepoR@idc.co.za>; psmith@iniafrica.comtmpasiri@iniafrica.comlovemorec@gmail.comalugumigiven@gmail.comcleopas@dawnholdings.com; Media <Media@idc.co.za>; Chimwemwe Mwanza <ChimwemweM@idc.co.za>; Tebatso Mokgoro <TebatsoM@idc.co.za>
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

Africa

Mukoma Masimba v Justice Makarau on Fit-4-Purpose re-Zimre Judgment

Walter Winchell

Published

on

Please enjoy the Q&A between MM and Justice Makarau.

Q: Why throw a race card in your letter to Lord St Johns of Bletso?
A: The deafening silence of the UK government on the hijack of subsidiaries of two UK registered companies, SMM Holdings Private Limited (ZHL) and THZ Holdings Limited (THZH), is striking.

In the Zimre Holdings Limited (ZHL) matter, the only weapon that was used as the reconstruction act to link the company to Mawere, their target of attack.

THZ Holdings Limited (THZH) had no legal nexus with SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM), the company was alleged to be indebted to the state when in truth and fact this was a total fabrication.

It is interesting that the crafters of the reconstruction decree introduced a self-serving close solely meant to catch all Mawere’s interests in one basket.

The decree introduced the idea of an associate deemed to be any company associated with SMM to be also a target for the hijack.

ZHL’s two shareholders, Endurite Properties Private Limited (Endurite) and UKI Private Limited (UKI) including ZHL itself were all deemed to be under Gwaradzimba’s control.

What is remarkable is that the Minister did not mention by name these entities but left this to the discretion of Gwaradzimba, a non-state actor?

It was Gwaradzimba who exercised discretionary power that fell outside the ambit of the decree.

In terms of the decree, it was only the Minister who could issue a reconstruction order in relation to a company that was purportedly indebted to the state and found by the same Minister to be insolvent.

In this case, no order was issued against ZHL by the Minister and more importantly, Gwaradzimba had no title to issue any limiting order to any company.

As a consequence of the Makarau JCC judgment, ZHL’s control and management were changed and THZH’s links with the company were terminated in court.

I shudder to think what would have been the case if the shareholder of THZH and SMMH were white persons or white-controlled entities.

Would the attitude of the UK government have been the same?

Clearly not. When people say BLACK RIGHTS DON’T MATTER at all in the UK, it is not a joke.

I should like to believe that the only plausible explanation why the British embassy is silent is because of the race issue.

Q: Do you think that Makarau JCC understood the constitutional issues inherent in her judgment?

A: On one hand, I am tempted to believe that she didn’t and probably thought that what was at play was a case of some judicial management in which an Administrator assumed the powers of a judicial manager.

On the other hand, I think she had constructive knowledge of what was at play and she must have known that she had no title to recognize the authority of an Administrator that was appointed outside the perimeter of legality.

No judge has the discretion to confer rights that the constitution prohibits.

The right to control and direct a company is a constitutional one and Makarau JCC’s recognition of Gwaradzimba’s order went beyond what any judge is permitted to do.

In addition, Makarau JCC knew that the intended corporate action involved the discretion of shareholders of ZHL and as such, she had no title to authorize the substitution of shareholders who should have participated and voted at ZHL’s extraordinary general meeting.

The protection of property rights that is enshrined and entrenched in the constitution was undermined and betrayed by Makarau JCC and she got away with this.

Q: What is your take on President Mnangagwa’s reliance on fatally defective judgments like that of Makarau JCC to assert that the reconstruction affair in relation to SMM was properly implemented?
A: I can understand President Mnangagwa’s position only if he was involved in the project to divest Mawere of his assets using public power.

No independent and accountable President would not act against dangerous judges like Makarau JCC unless he has vested interests in the outcome.

I have been following closely President Mnangagwa’s attitude on Mupasiri’s impeachment application and there is no doubt that he is implicated and fully associates himself with judgments that were sought and granted outside the boundaries of constitutionality.

Continue Reading

Africa

As Justice Makarau got offended by Mupasiri’s court submissions, justice may be the victim

Peter Smith

Published

on

On Thursday, 3 March 2022, Justice Makarau was offended that Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, the applicant in the unprecedented application to hold President Mnangagwa to account in an honest and transparent manner for his alleged role and knowledge in relation to the facts and circumstances that triggered the use of Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) as a weapon to attack the rights and freedoms of the shareholders of not only SMM Holdings Private Limited but a host of other juristic entities.

The heated exchange between Justice Makarau followed Mr. Mawere, the Applicant in the matter under Case# CCZ 11/22 for the recusal of the Learned Judge on alleged bias in matters that are cogent in the Mupasiri application.

At issue is whether the allegations made by Manikai, who is President Mnangagwa’s close ally and confidant apart from his legal advisor, on 27 March as follows were true and factual but to date, the President has chosen to fully associate himself with Manikai’s predicament as a professional lawyer who independently of President Mnangagwa took an oath to promote and protect the Constitution.

“I am perturbed that my President would openly and brazenly associate himself with a judge who in her judgment stated that she did not owe a duty to her oath by knowingly and intentionally refusing to consider the merits of the dispute that was brought before her on the assumption that she was an independent and impartial mind,” said Mr. Collins Charumbira.

Mr. Charumbira did not have any good words to say about Manikai, who he claims blocked him following an inquiry about the facts that were shared in the FOSMM group to the effect that Manikai is a person of interest in unpacking the facts and circumstances that led to the demise of SMM in 2004 following the use draconian manner in which public power was used to alienate the shareholders of companies that were providing jobs and income to thousands of Zimbabweans.

Manikai arrogantly told Collins to mind his business and never contact him again alleging that he was sent by Mawere to harass him over what he regarded as some “spilled milk.”

Collins said: “I am very encouraged that Mupasiri has taken the search for the truth forward and this dispute has migrated from chat groups to an arena that is provided for in the constitution.

I had no idea what the s167 remedy and I had already surrendered to my comfort after Manikai rebuffed my bona fide attempt to establish how he personally got involved in attacking Mawere, especially having regard to the objective facts that absent Mawere’s financial and moral support, the firm that President Mnangagwa is using to defend himself, DMH, would not be a reality.

Manikai tried to use the attorney to client privilege to avoid addressing my questions regarding his seminal role in prosecuting the reconstruction or destruction measures against SMM.

I am following closely this matter but I am increasingly convinced that President Mnangagwa may be a pawn in a game that Manikai authored for political expediency.”

The President and Manikai were represented by a junior attorney working for DMH in this application.

At the previous hearing, he told Justice Makarau that he had been instructed to oppose the recusal application by both his clients i.e., the President and Manikai.

Although Mupasiri had sought no relief against Manikai, Manikai has opposed his application.

“What I know is that there can be no justice without the truth in it.

What is troubling me is that no lawful would be blind to obligations imposed upon him or her, to tell the truth. When I wrote a letter to Manikai on 8 November 2021, I naively thought he would welcome my gesture by cooperating with the search for justice under the rule of law, but what I have been able to gather is that he behaves like a warlord who believes that he is UNTOUCHABLE.

It is striking that Manikai like Temba Mliswa believes that President Mnangagwa is the law or he is above the law and as such my application is an attack against the person of President Mnangagwa when he triggered and provoked me to be angry.

The more I learned about the SMM matter, the angrier I got but what has disturbed me more is that there are far too many people who excel at pontificating in chat groups without taking any steps to assert the rights that are enshrined and entrenched in the constitution,” said Mr. Mupasiri.

He continued to state as follows in relation to his experience on Thursday when he appeared before Justice Makarau’s case: “When Mawere launched his recusal application, I had taken this matter to be a third party cause and as such, all I needed to do was to focus on my application.

I did not oppose the relief Mawere sought because I genuinely believed that the intervention of the parties with knowledge would be helpful and beneficial to the court in resolving my cause of complaint.

I came to court with this understanding and background including my own curiosity as to what interest if any, would a President have in sticking to Justice Makarau as the only judge who can determine the application by Mawere for leave to intervene in my application.

Justice Makarau opened the hearing by establishing from the litigants in what capacity they were in court.

I told her that I was the main applicant and also that I was a self-actor.

Mr. Mawere was the first one to be asked to make his submissions. He was eloquent and on point. I was impressed by his understanding of the rules of court, his submissions regarding his objection to Justice Makarau’s involvement in any matter that she has already made judicial findings, and his unique ability to connect the dots.”

Mawere was followed by Mr. Gondogwa who appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

This is my first time to appear in court as a self-actor but what happened since Thursday, 25 February 2022 when Justice Makarau gave directions as to how the recusal application would be processed, I was surprised that the lawyers representing the President would proceed to intentionally sabotage the litigation.

The President and Manikai knew that they had to file their answering affidavits by close of business to allow Mawere to respond by close of business on Wednesday.

I was only served the opposing papers on Tuesday afternoon and Mawere was only served the papers on Wednesday morning after protesting to the Presiding Judge.

The explanation that Gondongwa gave that their messenger could not find the address did not make sense but this was meant to frustrate the process.

I was pleasantly surprised that Mawere managed to serve an answering affidavit that dealt with all the allegations made by the Respondent.

Accordingly, I was comforted that the Judge would at the very least reprimand DMH for failing to adhere to her directions but alas she said nothing at all.

I was also a recipient of Mawere’s letter to the Registrar to ask if the Learned Judge could postpone the matter to allow him to still get the 2 days allocated for him to respond.

The Learned Judge took the decision to completely ignore the request.

After Mawere’s brilliant submissions, Mr. Gondongwa on behalf of the Respondents did his best to divert the court’s attention in order for the recusal application to be dismissed, I was then asked by the Learned Judge to indicate whether I wished to say something regarding the recusal application.

The Learned Judge asked me to identify my interest in the dispute. I told her after reading Mawere’s application and his oral submissions, I wanted to zero in on two issues.

The first one was regarding the legality and constitutionality of a reconstruction order that was issued by Gwaradzimba in his capacity as the Administrator of SMM under circumstances that clearly offend the rule of law.

Below is the first paragraph in Justice Makarau in relation to the review application that she capriciously dismissed that was launched by the Second Intervening Party or THZ Holdings Limited (THZH), the company that had a direct and indirect shareholding in Zimre Holdings Limited (ZHL) of about +46%, trying to assert its rights in relation to the recognition of Gwaradzimba as an Administrator of Zimre.

It is clear that Gwaradzimba’s authority over Zimre was recognized by Justice Makarau when he possessed no title to do so. SMM had no ownership nexus with Zimre and yet the Learned Judge recognized the authority I described as akin to a pedestrian’s power and authority in relation to a company.

I was shocked that Justice Makarau contrary to the version given by President Mnangagwa in his opposition to my application that judges like her had determined the SMM reconstruction disputes in an independent and impartial manner, Justice Makarau had recognized and enforced flowing from Gwaradzimba’s purported order that was published in the local press announcing that Zimre, a listed company with other shareholders, was under his control and management.

Astonishingly, Justice Makarau admitted Gwaradzimba pursuant to an order that he authored as a party to the proceedings that should have been limited to parties with bona fide interests in the affairs of Zimre.

Not only did Justice Makarau clandestinely abuse her discretionary powers as a Judge to give the audience to Gwaradzimba, a creature of an act of state, she also gave him an order to control the destiny and fate of Zimre.

Surprisingly, she even had forgotten this travesty of justice that was orchestrated by her inside the court.

This knowledge alone created a real and not some abstract apprehension of bias allowing me to tell her from the bar that she is not fit to preside on the application for leave to intervene if in the part she had illegally given Gwaradzimba rights which no law permitted a judicial manager to possess.

It shocked me that according to Makarau, reconstruction was akin to liquidation when this is false and was solely intended to justify the theft of private assets using crooked judges as instruments or weapons to undermine the rule of law.”

The link to the notice referred to in Justice Makarau’s judgment is provided here: https://online.flipbuilder.com/mmawere/sdci/.

Below is a link to the full Zimre judgment: https://online.flipbuilder.com/mmawere/sdci/

Either the President knowingly and intentionally orchestrated the corporate coup and used his power and influence to procure fatally defective judgments by judges like Makarau or his power and authority were abused without his knowledge.

Mupasiri has given President Mnangagwa and Manikai to come clean and lift the lid that has been put by Manikai’s over the President’s head but it would appear that both persons do not believe that they are accountable to the constitution.

[0:27 pm, 05/03/2022] mdmawere1: Holding the powerful accountable
Cover up – hide – it is not just about SMM but about a broken system that will never get better when the sense of morality has shifted to condoning despicable acts.

Mr. Lonely Jeketera, a member of FOSMM and JUROL, who is a Business Consultant specializing in Company Registrations, Tax Advisory, and Human Capital Practice stated as follows: “I attended the recusal hearing before Justice Makarau and I was encouraged by the boldness of Mr. Mupasiri and his eloquence in asserting that the recusal application is key to the just and proper determination of his application that is pending before the court.

I had no idea that the judgments that President Mnangagwa relied upon included Justice Makarau’s judgments that she openly admitted were not determined on the facts placed before her court but on other considerations.

I have always wondered how THZH lost its shareholding in Zimre but now I can connect the dots as it is clear that Gwaradzimba used Justice Makarau as his weapon to create a nexus that did not exist to substitute shareholder rights with a creature of statute whose relationship with Zimre was recognized and enforced by the Court disregarding the constitutional rights of the parties involved.”

Mr. Tinashe Mpasiri, a director of TAP Building Products Limited (TAP), and a member of both FOSMM and JUROL had this to say:

“I have privilege as a person who corporate and financial knowledge to know that RECONSTRUCTION is not akin to LIQUIDATION as incorrectly asserted by Justice Makarau in her Zimre judgment.

Astonishingly, Justice Makarau is not the only one whose literacy on the legal and constitutional basis in which liquidation takes place and the key distinguishing features of extrajudicial self-help schemes like Reconstruction with liquidation or receivership, as even the Attorney General, Mr. Prince Machaya holds the same views as follows: https://www.herald.co.zw/hands-off-hwange-parly-told/.

It is striking that we have encountered the level of gross illiteracy in Zambia wherein a crooked judge called Kajimanga J (as he was known in 2006) held the same view that reconstruction was akin to receivership and as such he granted a judgment tainted by fraud to his court and fraud he assisted inside his court.

The judgment was used by Gwaradzimba and Manikai to steal about $1 million in Zambia.

When I spoke to Gwaradzimba recently, he like President Mnangagwa sought refuge in the decisions of courts that have been used as vehicles to commit fraud with impunity.

I had no knowledge of how deeply rooted corruption is under the watch of President Mnangagwa until I read his sworn statements in opposition to the litigations pursuant to the Mupasiri application.

As a director of TAP, I am tired of negotiating the end of corruption when the 2013 Constitution is instructive that I have an obligation to lift my voice against judges who abuse the trust bestowed on them by law.

I also have a duty to step forward so that the promise of equal protection before the law and the reality that each person has a right to benefit from the equal protection of the law.

I got the distinct sense from Gwaradzimba that he thinks that the limitations imposed by the Constitution do not apply to him and his political Godfather.

Manikai is bound by the same rules that others are duty bound to follow. It is not in dispute that DMH using the Reconstruction Act as a weapon, instructed a Zambian law firm, Mulenga, Mundashi Legal Partners (MMLP), as a corrupt bridge prosecuted a fraudulent claim that TAP was an associate and is doing, obtained a fraudulent judgment that was used to justify the undisputed payment of $127,346.10 by TAP to MMLP when there existed no legal causa for this unjust enrichment.

The Court has not been furnished with all the pertinent facts to determine who was in and out of this orchestrated state capture enterprise in Zimbabwe.

An incriminating narrative has been made by Manikai, a practicing attorney, that all the judges that handled SMM’s reconstruction matters were captured or behaved like robots.

Manikai possesses all the records and it is now common cause that President Mnangagwa who has admitted for the first time that he was fully briefed on the SMM heist and yet he seems to have the protection of the court in keeping mum on what is known to him and disclosing the who is who in the value chains that led to the demise of SMM and other enterprises.

In Zambia, Manikai did not follow the rules but he is not subject to Zambian laws although the crimes against TAP were committed within the borders of the country.

A big lie that Mawere had externalized funds and went to exile with the alleged loot was solely a smokescreen to steal with the knowledge of Zimbabwe’s first citizen, President Mnangagwa.

As an active citizen, I was fortified to also step forward and approach the Court on behalf of TAP and my personal behalf to seek to hold Manikai accountable for the invasion of Zambian jurisdictional space, attack the courts of Zambia, and finally obtain a judgment tainted by fraud.

The fraudulent judgment was used to siphon funds from TAP. President Mnangagwa under oath is not ashamed to use a law that poses so gave risk to the integrity of his administration yet pretends to be the champion of anti-corruption initiatives in Zimbabwe.

It is the blatant attempt to defend the indefensible that shakes my sense of knowing what is right or wrong. I am no longer afraid to call Manikai out for who he is. There are far too many people who are gullible enough to believe that reconstruction was triggered by SMM’s alleged state-indebtedness when in truth and fact the people who claim to be servant leaders are the authors of a vicious attack on the rule of law.

The discourse that should follow the tone and language adopted by President Mnangagwa is scary to me as it suggests that the whole system of governance has irreparably broken down and I am not prepared to go down and sink with these people.

As I listened attentively to the court submissions in the recusal hearing, I could not help but reflect on the meaning of a President who took an oath to protect and uphold the rule of law intentionally seeking to protect Manikai’s actions from public scrutiny.

This to me is a red flag that it will be impossible to unearth and the most unlikely person to seek to conceal the truth from the Court is my President who should suffer no personal prejudice if the truth is openly disclosed he state of knowledge and involvement in the saga.

The refusal and failure by the President not to distance himself from Manikai.

To the extent that the SMM problem just gives us a glimpse of what really takes place in the corridors of public power, this chilling evidence is a pointer to a larger governance national challenge that speaks to a new morality index that violating norms is fine and openly defying tradition, the constitution is perfectly okay and more significantly that the justice system is now an enabler to allow the corrupt to get away with it.

I am concerned that there will never be accountability and transparency if the evidence is constructively placed beyond the ears of the courts as seems to be the case in this matter.

It was clear from the demeanor of Justice Makarau that her court is paralyzed and it is part of a project that involves a conspiracy of many actors in the chain to prevent any investigation from being instituted by President Mnangagwa or by the courts to ensure that the Mupasiri dispute is determined on its merits.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 iniAfrica. an African narrative about ‘The Africa I want‘