Connect with us

Corporate Governance

Critical Analysis of Ethics and Corporate Governance Issues on the Rule of Law and Property Rights in Zimbabwe: Gwaradzimba’s SMM Management and Mutumwa Mawere’s Mount Pleasant House Case Study



Image Credit: SlideShare

Brian Kazungu, 06/04/2021

Recently, iniAfrica News wrote an article titled SMM’s Administrator, Afaras Gwaradzimba Struggles to Provide Answers on Mawere’s Mount Pleasant House after 17 Years of Being in Charge.

In this article, it was highlightedthatAfaras Gwaradzimba, as the State appointed Administrator for Zimbabwe’s Shabani Mashava Mines which was placed under Reconstruction in 2004 was finding it difficult to explain what was happening in relation to Mutumwa Mawere’s house.

The issue which needed clarity were on why and how SMM collected rentals for a property that did not belong to it and what did it do with the money which it collected without the consent of the legal owner of the property.

In the WhatsApp chats between Mutumwa Mawere and Afaras Gwaradzimba which this paper saw, the Administrator acknowledged the mishap, promised to look into it and referred further correspondence to the company’s lawyers, Dube, Manikai and Hwacha (DMH) Attorneys.

However, in a related article published by Zimlive under the title, Mawere shops SMM administrator to ZACC over ‘illegal’ leasing of his house, Gwaradzimba is quoted as having said the following:

“I spoke to Mawere and told him I don’t know anything concerning his Mt Pleasant property, and that I would consult SMM management over the matter. I’m the administrator of SMM and not Mawere’s private property. Mawere should know more about his own property than I do,” – Gwaradzimba.

In regard to this whole debacle, here-under is a critical analysis of ethics and corporate governance issues on the rule of law and property rights in Zimbabwe using Gwaradzimba’s SMM Management and Mutumwa Mawere’s Mount Pleasant House as a Case Study.

This conversational critical analysis is adapted from a no-holds-barred WhatsApp chat between Mutumwa Mawere himself and Pharaoh Chimunoko who shared his general and business insights based on the available facts on the ground.

Pharaoh Chimunoko [12:58 PM, 4/4/2021]: Hello Sir. I been going through the threads and I appear to want to ask questions akin to what Mduduzi asked though in a different manner.         

It’s common knowledge that Gwaradzimba was extra-judicially appointed to administer the affairs of SMM and not the affairs of Mutumwa Mawere. My question is how did he get access to the personal house of Mutumwa Mawere?

Could the house, by any chance, have appeared in the books of SMM? Has it been occupied by any SMM employees during your tenure?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [1:17 PM, 4/4/2021]: I just learnt that the house was bought while you were in the USA which implies that it was not bought by proceeds from SMM and probably way back before the acquisition of SMM.

In that case the powers of the administrator to think about following the money does not hold. I don’t know how far true it is that the rentals were being channeled to the company and a trust was to be created where the rentals less admin fees would be deposited.

I don’t get it when one bulges into my safe take all the money go on to bank it deducting administration fees when I never contracted them to do such kind of work. The thought is missing me.

There appear to be less thought Vis a Vis the issue of property rights and corporate limitations.

The idea of forming a company is meant to separate the owners’ and the company’s affairs. When an administrator, who claims professionalism is championing poor corporate governance which he was employed to implement then we can say we are going nowhere.

mdmawere1 [1:18 PM, 4/4/2021]: It was always managed by myself but given that I was living outside the country, I requested Ms. Mwamuka, to assist me in collecting rentals outside the sphere of her employment.

At the time, the control and direction of SMM was under my control. The effect of the reconstruction act was to divest and deprive me of any legal nexus with SMM, the company.

Pharaoh Chimunoko [3:23 PM, 4/4/2021]: SMM has been providing security and paying rates for a house, in return collecting rentals but the administrator who is employed to oversee that there are no leakages of income to unauthorized individuals doesn’t know. I am not amused.

The nature of a reconstruction administration entails accounting for all assets and minimize liabilities. If you can assume unknown liabilities and unknown income and manage unrelated assets my mind rushes to think of incompetence.

Though without facts, the possibility of the company income going unchecked is very high and my question is; how is he faring as an administrator? Is he the right person for the job?

Since his installation, just like a Traditional Chief, how many creditors has he settled. Has the State recovered its debt? Is the company in a better position than before him? Have his fees ever been made public or he is just employed to kill off the company?

In the substance, the house issue might just be a tip of the iceberg. There’s likely to be too much mismanagement and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts at the company. Something needs to be done.

mdmawere1 [3:24 PM, 4/4/2021]: Do you agree that absent consent by the right holders, what can only follow is theft?

[3:39 PM, 4/4/2021] Pharaoh Chimunoko: Admitted. But depends on how the theft is perpetrated. It might not be an outright theft if there was a reasonable belief the house might be part of the property of the company. In that case the criminal element of the intent to deprive the owner of his house might be lacking. However the act constitute a delictual deprivation of right to property

[3:39 PM, 4/4/2021] mdmawere1: In relation to residential property, who is liable for rates and taxes?

[3:41 PM, 4/4/2021] Pharaoh Chimunoko: Obviously the owner or any person assigned by same

[3:42 PM, 4/4/2021] mdmawere1: Do you agree that for one to pay rates in relation to a residential property, one would have to do so as an agent of a known property owner?

[3:44 PM, 4/4/2021] Pharaoh Chimunoko: Unless the lease agreement stipulates otherwise, the tenant is responsible for paying rent. Where there’s any repairs to be done, he may do them but claim the cost from the landlord.

[3:47 PM, 4/4/2021] Pharaoh Chimunoko: In this case you mentioned that you assigned Ms. Mwamuka to manage the house. What needs to be verified is how she was bundled out of control of the house.

[3:48 PM, 4/4/2021] mdmawere1: Is it plausible that rates could be paid without the payer knowing of the property owner in question?

[3:55 PM, 4/4/2021] Pharaoh Chimunoko: The question of competence and suitability for the purpose comes into play. Spending 17 years managing something you don’t know. Even a mistake belief could have been verified and rectified.

mdmawere1 [3:56 PM, 4/4/2021]: I am asking whether it is possible for anyone to pay rates on a property without knowing the property owner?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [4:00 PM, 4/4/2021]: Absolutely Not

mdmawere1 [4:01 PM, 4/4/2021]: So what is your take on the veracity of the statement below by Gwaradzimba?

*****Afternoon once more. I have established that the house has always been leased out. SMM are paying the rates and receiving the rentals. However, SMM does not have the title deeds, neither do they know as to who the house is regis…*****

Pharaoh Chimunoko [4:09 PM, 4/4/2021]: I noticed it when I was reading the threads and two issues came to my mind. Either it is deliberate lie or there’s a literal rent-seeking behavior i.e. looking for avenues of getting income regardless of where it is coming from

mdmawere1 [4:09 PM, 4/4/2021]: What is Gwaradzimba saying above?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [4:13 PM, 4/4/2021]: The statement is portraying his ignorance of what is transpiring

mdmawere1 [4:20 PM, 4/4/2021]: Is he is not stating as true and fact that he established that SMM was paying rates in respect of the house?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [5:34 PM, 4/4/2021]: It’s true but his purported lack of knowledge leaves a lot to be desired.

mdmawere1 [5:37 PM, 4/4/2021]: He says he has knowledge that rent was paid. This precludes no knowledge of the owner. Do you agree?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [5:48 PM, 4/4/2021]: That’s agreeable.

mdmawere1 [5:50 PM, 4/4/2021]: If you agree, do you notice the immediate conflict in the version that admits to payment of rates and lack of knowledge regarding the owner. Do you agree that the two versions are mutually exclusive?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [6:57 PM, 4/4/2021]: The versions are conflicting. It’s like he is saying somebody had been in relaxed mood thinking that things are moving as expected then suddenly confronted with undeniable facts. The confidence dashes away and confusion reigns in

mdmawere1 [7:10 PM, 4/4/2021]: Which version should be accepted?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [7:16 PM, 4/4/2021]: It’s clear he is pretending not to know to save face while at the same time exposing himself as an incompetent administrator

mdmawere1 [7:17 PM, 4/4/2021]: Can a thief be called incompetent?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [7:19 PM, 4/4/2021]: For the purpose of his job as an administrator, Yes, But for his self-aggrandizement No

mdmawere1 [7:40 PM, 4/4/2021]: Do you agree that the rule of law permits no self-help?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [7:43 PM, 4/4/2021]: Yes I do

 mdmawere1 [4/5, 8:39 AM]: Based on this, what can you say as a conclusion? Do you trust Gwaradzimba as an honest actor? Would you hire him to any position involving public trust?

Pharaoh Chimunoko [4/5, 8:55 AM]: In respect of this he is exhibiting signs of a dishonest person. At one point he portrays himself as a professional practitioner and then he pretend to deny knowledge of what he has been doing for 17 years. He offers to verify (a good move for a professional though) what he clearly knows. His demeanor in the whole cast is dishonorable to say the least.

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 [email protected] @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. Required fields are marked *


Machaya asserted that Reconstruction Act was constitutional in 2018, is he correct?



In November 2018, Mr. Prince Machaya asserted boldly that a law that divests and deprives shareholders and directors of the control and management of a private company was Constitutional.

He stated as follows to the Parliamentary Committee on Mines that was chaired by Hon. Themba Mliswa as follows:

Source: https://news.pindula.co.zw/2018/11/20/parliament-has-no-power-to-probe-hwange-colliery-company-attorney-general/

Below we have a Q&A with Mr. Tinashe Mpasiri, Director of Corporate Literacy at the Justice Under Rule of Law Institute, an initiative jointly powered by the 1873FM radio and the Banking on Africa’s Future Initiative:

Q: Mr. Mpasiri what is the state?

A: It is ironic that Mr. Machaya, the Attorney General (AG) knows and ought to know that in relation to the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act (Recon Act), the word STATE is not defined.

If this is accepted as true and fact, the question that inevitably follows is how can one be indebted to a nullity?

Notwithstanding, the AG who evidently lives on another planet asserts that it can be a legal possibility that a company can be indebted to this self-created creditor called the state.

Just to demonstrate the absurdity implied in the AG’s assertion that: “In the case of companies which are put under reconstruction, the fact that they are indebted to the State does not necessarily make them Government agencies,” the constitution in terms of s69(2) that provides as set out below precludes a creditor in the name of the state from assuming a superior creditor status in relation to a debtor in terms of the doctrine of equality:

“In the determination of civil rights and obligations, every person has a right to a
fair, speedy, and public hearing within a reasonable time before an independent
and impartial court, tribunal, or other forum established by law.”

Consequently, no law can pass the constitutional muster that is based on a principle that makes the state a judge, jury, and executioner in relation to civil rights and obligations.

The AG has a constitutional duty in terms of s114(4)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe: “to promote, protect and uphold the rule of law and to defend the public interest;” and his conduct and attitude in relation to the constitutional validity confirm he not cognizant on the limitations imposed upon him by the constitution.

Q: What is your take on the statement by AG that: “Parliament cannot exercise its powers over a company like Hwange, any power that it would not otherwise have if it is not under an order of reconstruction because it is a privately-controlled company?”

A: Indeed, no company is contemplated and permitted to exist that is defined as state-indebted because the indebtedness of a company does not define its identity. This is like classifying a pregnant woman into another human class. A woman belongs to a universal class of humans and as such should be incapable of belonging to any special class solely on account of pregnancy.

A company is a company by any description and, therefore, the Recon Act creates no company and as such a company under reconstruction is no company at all but is analogous to a company whose control and management are hijacked by an act of state.

This can only happen in a country that does not respect the rule of law.

It is chilling that an AG, an oath-taking public office bearer can surrender to a civilization in which the so-called state can acquire the rights and freedoms of a creditor when it enjoys no standing to be a creditor.

What is astonishing is that this offensive and morally bankrupt Act is administered by the Minister of Justice, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs who possesses no jurisdictional facts to determine if a private company is indebted or not?

On what legal and constitutional basis would this public office bearer acquire the facts to enable him to determine that a private company is indebted to the so-called state on the one hand and conclude in his mind that the said company is insolvent without the purported debtors being constructively involved in the enterprise of hijacking?

Q: The AG asserted that the company so hijacked using this law as a weapon: “has got shareholders and other people,” what is your take on this statement?

A: The mere fact that the hijacked company has its own shareholders and officials makes it unconstitutional for public power to be used to divest and deprive them of the control and management of their company without following the due process of the law.

Q: The AG further stated: “If there was no order of reconstruction, Parliament cannot play its oversight over Hwange,” what do you make of this statement?

A: The AG is saying because the hijacking of a company does not involve any public funds, the Parliament has no jurisdiction over the creature. This is tantamount to saying that the loot obtained from the use of public power does not legally belong to the government but to the looters.

Q: The AG stated: “The order of reconstruction itself does not make Hwange an institution of Government,” what is your take on this?

A: The whole enterprise of reconstruction is to permit crooked public office bearers to use the government and its coercive power to expropriate private assets without necessarily creating any accountability in the process. In other words, the Administrator, a creature of statute assumes the control and management of the confiscated assets without suffering the statutory burden of reporting to any organ of state other than the Minister who issued the extra judiciary order in relation to a private company whose effect is to create a facade of a company without the properties of a company. The Administrator is not accountable to Parliament yet the basis of placing the company under reconstruction is that the hijacked company is indebted to the fiscus.

Continue Reading


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



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





The 1873 Network in collaboration with the Africa Heritage Society (AHS) is pleased to announce that Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri (TM), has been inducted into the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF) – 10,000 Points of Light (POL) for his outstanding contribution to the building of an open, accountable, and transparent constitutional order in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Jagjit Singh, the Director of the BOAF – 10,000 POL initiative said: “I am pleased to have a person of courage and conviction like Mr. Mupasiri into our community of shapers of Africa that we are all yearning for.

The reality in many African states is that public trust has eroded drastically in the post-colonial era yet there exists very few people prepared to take any step forward to hold people in public offices to account for their conduct in government.

The fact that there exists no shared understanding of what good governance is and is not, compels all of us to take notice of the role that individuals like Mr. Mupasiri play in shaping and defining a new personality of Africa that remains elusive.

I am particularly encouraged that a new consciousness is developing in countries like Zimbabwe that adds value to our collective search for the kind of state craftsmanship that is value-centric and servant orientated.”

Mr. Frederick Koomson, Director of the Public Engagement initiative of JUROL said: “Justice and truth are friends yet rarely do we encounter public office bearers who are willing and prepared to put the public in their confidence in the exercise of their duties.

The quest for justice is our duty as citizens and we are all enjoined to promote, protect and uphold the rule of law.

I am excited that the foundation that we have already laid in the building a critical mass of people who are prepared to step forward and be the face of change that is missing will augur well for the promising future of Africa.”

Mr. Mupasiri said: “I am excited to be one of the lights in Africa and to be recognized for doing that which the constitution of my country expects me to do.

It is true that my application before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has given visibility to the urgency and need for citizens to trade fear for active citizenship.

I hope this induction will help inspire others to use the available vehicles to test whether the promise entrenched in the Constitution that no one is above the law is alive and well.

I would rather die on my feet standing for what I believe in than on my knees begging for the rights and freedoms that are part of the constitutional promise.

Ms. Janice Greaver said: “When FOSMM launched an application to compel President Ramaphosa to take the necessary steps to ensure that the precedent set to recognize and enforce rights created by an act of state in Zimbabwe will never happen, I had no idea that this culture of using the courts to determine if the public office bearers are alive to their duties and promises would spread to Zimbabwe so fast.

Welcome, Mr. Mupasiri to the community of forward-leaning individuals.”

Continue Reading