fbpx
Connect with us

C2C Community

President Mnangagwa’s Man Exposed – Manikai

Published

on

The Malaba-led Constitutional Court’s reputation is on the line following the application by Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri in terms of s167(2)(d) and s167(3) testing whether the promise that no one is above the law is alive and well under Zimbabwe’s constitutional dispensation ushered by the 2013 Constitution.

What is the Rule of law:

President Mnangagwa’s Key Man Exposed

  1. President Mnangagwa’s Key Man, Mr. Edwin Manikai’s shenanigans are being exposed in a landmark constitutional case that was launched by Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri on 17 December 2021.
  2. The Respondents are President Mnangagwa and Mr. Edwin Manikai, a prominent lawyer in Zimbabwe, who also acts the Chairman of an Advisory Council that was created by President Mnangagwa to bridge him to the private sector.
  3. At the core of the dispute is message that Manikai shared with a member of the Friends of SMM (FOSMM) group that was then shared in the group.
  4. This message contained a scandalous narrative that helps explain the demise of the SMM group and the role that Manikai played in prosecuting the dramatic fall of Mawere’s business empire.
  5. This message set out below does not require a rocket scientist to interpret it:
  • When this matter came for discussion in the FOSMM group, Mr. Mutanda tried to distance himself from it in order to protect Manikai, his nephew.
  • The more he tried to deny the veracity of the serious and malicious allegations against the President, the more people in the group became determined and fortified in using the courts to establish the true facts that led to the unprecedented abuse of public office to divest a private individual of his property.
  • This material revelation by Manikai was the first since 2004 pointer to the alleged direct involvement of Mnangagwa in the facts leading to the promulgation of the reconstruction decree that permitted Chinamasa, the current Secretary of Finance in the Politburo, to issue an extrajudicial order in the full knowledge that the judiciary will acquiesce and simply rubber stamp anything that Mnangagwa wished to happen.
  • The relationship between Mawere and Mnangagwa has always been shrouded in mystery with many people believing that Mawere’s Godfather was Mnangagwa and the demise of SMM was a consequent to a fallout between the two.
  • On 17 March 2021, Manikai confirmed the political context of the fallout and linked this to the demise of SMM through the reconstruction laws.
  • A decision was made in the group to test the allegations in a court of law. That is where Mupasiri who was as disgusted as many in the group that Manikai’s serious allegations needed to be repeated under oath.
  • He chose to use s167(2)(d) and s167(3) as his constitutional weapons of attack.
  • The power hold public officers including the President accountable to the Constitution was granted exclusively to the courts by the 2013 Constitution.  Based on this constitutional remedy, Mupasiri sought refuge in it to test whether the President can be held accountable for what Manikai said was his pivotal role in creating the reconstruction laws.
  1. “My point of departure was simply that by including Manikai as a Second Respondent, the President would be given an opportunity to openly and transparently distance himself from the corrupt and despicable conduct by Manikai using his firm, DMH, in undermining the rule of law that the President took an oath to promote and protect.

I had no idea that even the President would seek to shield Manikai from giving his version of what transpired before the introduction of the reconstruction regulations using state of emergency and his specific role in prosecuting this draconian law.

The President in paragraph 4.2 of his replying affidavit to my application stated in relation to Manikai’s role in relation to SMM:

“A substantial portion of the application relates to the alleged conduct of second respondent, a private citizen.

The alleged conduct of the second respondent cannot be relied upon in an application of this nature.

It is impermissible in an application of this nature for the court to enquire into anything other than the conduct of a president,” said Mr. Mupasiri, the Director of Public Policy who is leading the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) initiative that is powered by FOSMM.

  1. One would have expected President Mnangagwa to recognize that it is unconstitutional for a private citizen like Manikai to be intricately and personally invested in the politics of succession to allow him to think he is above the law simply because of his proximity and influence over the choices and actions of the President.
  2. The 2013 marked and ought to have marked a clear departure from the state power sharing arrangement provided for under the Lancaster Constitution to a new jurisprudence that should by now be well established.
  3. We are now in a new order that has evolved from the one prevailing in 2004 when SMM was hijacked with the judiciary possessing no power to review the conduct of those wielding public power like the President and as such they were insulated and shielded from any scrutiny.
  4. The Constitution compels all citizens to use s167 as a weapon to test whether the conduct of all public affairs (by both private and state actors) must measure up to the constitutional imperatives under the watchful eye of the judiciary, which in turn is also obliged to always venerate the Constitution.
  5. The fundamental principle and its concomitant legal ramifications that Mupasiri is asserting in his landmark application are spelled out in s 2 of the Constitution as follows:
  6. This Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
  7. The obligations imposed by this Constitution are binding on every person, natural or juristic, including the State and all executive, legislative and judicial institutions and agencies of government at every level, and must be fulfilled by them.”
  8. Unknown to a person like Manikai who is a practicing lawyer is that the 2013 constitution makes a break the practice of turning a blind eye to constitutional obligations.
  9. The rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution as some of the core founding values and principles that are entrenched in the Constitution leaving the judiciary with no title to apply any discretion when asked to determine if public office bearers are or should be immune from taking their constitutional obligations seriously.
  10. The Malaba-led court is being tested to see if it has embraced the doctrines of constitutional supremacy and accountability.
  11. Both the President and Manikai must be aware that they both have an obligation to protect the Constitution and to promote democratic governance in Zimbabwe.
  12. The President specifically in terms of s90(2)(c) has the obligation to uphold, among others, the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution, two of the founding values and principles set out in the Constitution.

THE INVASION OF ZAMBIA BY MANIKAI & CO.

  • It is fact that Manikai was the driving force in the extraterritorial application of the Zimbabwean regulations that when properly construed were created to attack the very constitution that he swore to protect and promote.
  • The fact that he got away with this in Zambia, is one thing, but the reality that the President would seek to protect Manikai’s presumed private citizen status against overwhelming evidence that he personally benefited from the fraud that was enabled by the law that he alleges the President played a key role in creating is chilling.
  • Set out below are useful comments that speak to the growing concern that President Mnangagwa’s key associates are not subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution:

[1/16, 10:54 PM] Tendai Mazenge: I have read the above concerning the fraudulent activities of Gwaradzimba and Manikai over TAP. Armed with all the evidence provided iam pretty sure we can stand a chance in correcting the wrongs that Manikai and Gwaradzimba did over the fraudulent acquisition of TAP using a law from Zimbabwe in Zambia. They further made themselves Directors of TAP after dissolving the TAP board of Directors. To make matters worse they stole $700 000 dollars plus $300 000 that was paid as legal fees. These people must be brought to book. Misrepresentation of facts is a criminal offence. They lied that TAP was a subsidiary of SMM which was not true. The evidence is overwhelming.

[1/19, 1:48 PM] Tendai Mazenge: It’s good that most people that didn’t know anything about SMM and the Reconstruction act are beginning to understand what really happened. It’s a well calculated criminal offence that was created by these vampires masquerading as government operatives while fleecing innocent citizens of their wealth and companies.

[1/19, 2:03 PM] Tendai Mazenge: Yes. Manikai was a lawyer appointed by Chinamasa to deal with the SMM case in Zimbabwe but he went on to misrepresent facts about TAP being a subsidiary of SMM which was not true. He smuggled a law from Zimbabwe to Zambia which again is fraudulent. He then became a Director of TAP together with Gwaradzimba which again is a fraud. He then goes on to siphon 700 000 dollars from TAP after dissolving the TAP board and imposed themselves in a company they have no shareholding capacity. Another 300 000 grand was taken from TAP for legal fees. Manikai and Gwaradzimba had no right to do what they did, enriching themselves and taking ownership of a company they never created or invested in. The Judge in Zambia who agreed to use a law from Zimbabwe to be used in Zambia was at fault and has to be sued as he is also an accomplice in this white-collar criminal case.

[1/19, 2:22 PM] Tendai Mazenge: DMH was appointed by Chinamasa to represent government without the knowledge of the AG who is the chief legal advisor to the government. Chinamasa under the instruction of Mnangagwa appointed DMH.

  • The Mundashi scandal manifested in form of an invoice below. It will be noted from the invoice that:
    • The invoice was vatable.
    • It was dated 7 February 2006 or eight days after the Kajimanga judgment of 30 January, 2006.
    • The invoice number was 05/181
    • It was addressed to DMH, the same law firm that is representing the President in the Mupasiri and Musengezi challenges.
    • It confirms that this invoice related to services rendered by Mundashi via the agency of Mulenga, Mundashi and Company (MMC).
    • DMH is a Zimbabwean law firm and MMC is a Zambian law firm.
  •  The subject matter for which the invoice was made was the self-created dispute that DMH instructed MMC to prosecute based on a fraudulent misrepresentation that TAP was an associate of SMM under reconstruction.
  • The joke is that MMC was paid to do research on the law and preparing a preliminary opinion on the legality of the fraudulent scheme.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

C2C Community

Pres. Mnangagwa must have assumed that he is addressing ‘economic illiterates’, says Professor PLO LUMUMBA

Published

on

Professor PLO LUMUMBA remarked in a WhatsApp group, under the title African Political Debates (APB), that: “Mnangagwa must have assumed that he is addressing ‘economic illiterates’,” after watching this video:

Set out below is a conversation that followed Prof Lumumba’s comment that must have been meant to provoke, ignite and inspire conversations on whose duty it is to shape and define the character and personality of Africa.

Africa belongs to all who ADD VALUE to its personality and character. CIVICS ILLITERACY for fodder for despots,

[[2:40 pm, 03/04/2022] Dr. Plo Lumumba: President Mnangagwa must have assumed that he is addressing ‘economic illiterates’.

[2:47 pm, 03/04/2022] BOAF00001: He did not have to assume because illiteracy is the bridge to power in many of our societies otherwise if the voters were alert and vigilant, do you think this reality would be possible?

[2:49 pm, 03/04/2022] Dr. Plo Lumumba: I must agree with you. It is the bane of most of Africa.

[2:53 pm, 03/04/2022] BOAF00001: Pervasive illiteracy on what matters including CIVICS is debilitating and fodder for abusive political actors.

[2:54 pm, 03/04/2022] Dr. Plo Lumumba: Marcus Tullios Cicero quote:

“Do not blame Ceasar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and dance on his path and give him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the forum of the new ‘ wonderful good society, ‘ which shall now be Rome. Interpreted to mean more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.”

[2:54 pm, 03/04/2022] BOAF00001: Nothing much has changed.

[2:55 pm, 03/04/2022] Dr. Plo Lumumba: Still relevant centuries later👆🏿Europe stirred up but we remain in deep slumber

[2:58 pm, 03/04/2022] BOAF00001: As long as public power is prostituted, there will be no one left to protect the public from tyrants.

The Brothel that are African political systems can only guarantee Africa’s downward spiral.
The few voices of reason will continue to be pooh poohed as irrelevant, utopian and even stupid irritants.

Continue Reading

Africa

Who has title to decide to prosecute civil or constitutional questions on behalf of the President?

Published

on

In the matter under Case Number CCZ 34/21, the Applicant, Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, launched his application and served it at the Attorney General’s office believing that s114 of the Constitution was applicable.

Mr. Mupasiri explains the reason and logic behind the targeted Respondents as follows:

“At the time, I launched the application, I will alive to the background and reason why s167 is limited to the apex court’s exclusive jurisdiction in determining the merits or demerits of a complaint regarding the breach of a constitutional duty imposed specifically on the President as the constitutional head of the government of Zimbabwe.

I knew that no President who is not conflicted would miss any opportunity to correct a record that may exist with or without his knowledge regarding his conduct.

I wrote a letter to Manikai, the author of the utterances made in a chat with Mr. Fred Mutanda on 27 March 2021 or after 17 years of the placement of SMM under the control of an Administrator appointed by Chinamasa in his capacity as a purported representative of a creditor of SMM.

It was alleged that SMM was indebted to the state solely because its ultimate beneficial shareholder, the person of Mr. Mutumwa Mawere had diverted SMM’s export proceeds in SA resulting in SMM being forced to borrow funds from the state.

If this version was true and fact, I reckoned that any bona fide creditor, would not need the agency of a Minister of Justice to assist in debt collection when such an eventuality of a defaulting debtor is a common occurrence in relation to companies as going concerns.

I could not find any justification for the actors like Chinamasa using public power to create facts and circumstances in respect of a debtor like SMM being targeted by creating a special law providing for a creditor in the name of the state being clothed with powers to self-help and benefit from a law specifically crafted to create a new class of corporate citizenship in the name of the state.

After the revelations by Manikai, I took an interest in better understanding the facts and circumstances that informed the decision to divest and deprive shareholders of SMM in the manner that unfolded the abortive attempt to extradite Mawere from SA to Zimbabwe in May 2004.

The more I tried to understand the facts the more the knowledge I obtained from pedestrian sources did not make sense.

This called for me to use the FOSMM and JUROL platforms to reach out to Mr. Mawere and others who possessed personal knowledge to help respond to the frequently asked questions as follows:

When I chose to seek refuge in s167 of the Constitution as the appropriate point of departure in my quest for the truth, it never dawned on that the President was going to be involved and impose his power and authority to have a conflicted person like Manikai get the agency to defend him.

It is specifically provided that one of the functions of the AG is to represent the government in all civil and constitutional proceedings.

On 24 December 2021, I was served with two affidavits one that was deposed to by the President opposing my application and the second one by Manikai.

I already knew that my application had already been thrown to the wolves by President Mnangagwa who I expected to treat my complaint with the seriousness it calls for.

Regrettably, this opportunity was squandered by the President. This resulted in my taking the next step of writing directly to DMH to establish whether the decision by the President was facilitated by the office of the AG or the President had unilaterally engaged DMH using public resources.

I wrote a letter dated 27 December 2021 naively believing that following rules and the law is what would ordinarily guide a lawyer, I was surprised that DMH ignored my gesture completely.

The next thing is that DMH had gotten the attention of a nameless and faceless judge who directed that matter be set down for hearing on 9 March 2022 even before resolving the authority question that I had flagged.

It was already obvious that the outcome of my application could already have been predetermined.

Following the receipt of the letter informing me that the hearing of this dispute had already been set down, I immediately launched an interlocutory application seeking the relief set out below:

It is clear from the above that the issue of authority was central to my application seeking a declaration by the Court setting out the procedures including the limitations imposed by the constitution in respect of engaging private law firms in providing external services in relation to litigations of the kind I launched.

I only got the answer from Mr. Gondogwa on behalf of DMH’s clients, the President, and Mr. Manikai, in response to Mawere’s challenge regarding his recusal application, that DMH had been appointed by the President to defend him with public resources.

However, the facts of the matter speak to a completely different narrative that the decision by the President to oppose my s167 application was made without the knowledge and involvement of the office of the AG.

It was only after realizing that I had raised the issue that an attempt was made by correspondences to mislead the court into believing that DMH’s agency was procured by the AG when this is false.

My experiences since launching my application confirm that DMH’s relationship with the President does not fall into the category of attorney to client realm.”

WHO POSSESSES AUTHORITY TO APPOINT AND PAY FOR THE SERVICES OF PRIVATE LAWYERS TO ACT IN ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEARERS?

This is a question for our readers to comment in the quest to create a Zimbabwe that is accountable and transparent.

Continue Reading

Africa

Did Minister Chitando steal claims? As Welshman Ncube and Prof Madhuku are put in the spotlight

Published

on

On 8 February 2022, Minister Chitando who played an instrumental role in the placement of Hwange Colliery Company Limited (Hwange) under the control of a state-appointed Administrator, was in court on allegations that he grabbed 8 mining claims.

The role of one of President Mnangagwa’s blue-eyed Ministers in undermining the rule of law is well established but his direct role in allegedly fraudulently diverting the 8 claims to a company in which he is director was not known until businessman Yakub Ibrahim Mahomed accused him of orchestrating a scheme that resulted in him losing the title, right, and interest in the claims.

In this matter, the role of the leading Zimbabwean lawyers in prosecuting and defending the indefensible also comes under the spotlight.

The VP of the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) party, Welshman Ncube, and the President of the NCA party, Lovemore Madhuku are acting for Minister Chaitando.

Chitando is accused of grabbing the claims and then re-issuing them to Golden Reef Mining (Pvt) Ltd, where he is a director.

Mohamed owns Anesu Gold (Pvt) Ltd, which he claims in court papers is the registered owner of the gold claims in Mberengwa district, Midlands province, which are also referred to as Mangoro claims.

Mohamed has filed a High Court application seeking to interdict Chitando, Mines secretary Onesimo Moyo, Golden Reef Mining, and Midlands provincial mining director Tariro Ndhlovu from grabbing the mining claims.

The matter was set for hearing yesterday, but High Court judge Justice Rogers Manyangadze postponed it to February 24 at the request of Chitando’s lawyer, Takudzwa Mutomba who indicated that the minister, together with Moyo and Ndhlovu had secured the services of a new lawyer, Lovemore Madhuku who was tied up elsewhere.

Welshman Ncube is representing Golden Reef Mining while Advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara is representing Anesu Gold.

In his application, Mohamed said the mining claims were previously owned by, and registered in the name of Start Mining Services (Private) Limited, where he initially had a 70% stake with the other 30% owned by Rugare Gumbo.

Mohamed said he later bought out Gumbo and now owns 100% shareholding of the claims.

It is alleged that in 2018, Chitando sent invoices for Start Mining Services to pay mining fees for the claims.

Fidelity Printers approved that US$6,4 million must be paid to finance the applicant’s operations, including the payment of the inspection fees for the mining claims.

“This arrangement had the approval of the governor of the Reserve Bank and the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Fidelity gave the facility on the strength of clean and unencumbered mining claims following a due diligence process,” Mohamed’s court affidavit read.

Continue Reading

Trending

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