Dr. Sanangura has responded to Acting Chief Justice Zondo’s challenge for the public to present concrete facts in support of allegations that all is not well in the judiciary.
Dr. Sanangura who was a witness in a trial presided by Willis J who intentionally and knowingly with intend to prejudice the Defendants created evidence to support a fraudulent judgment in favor of the government of Zimbabwe (GOZ) on the basis that diversion of funds occurred as a consequence of a cession court order per Van Oosten J delivered on 4 May 2004.
Justice Makume presided over a rescission application on the basis that this judgment was granted on the basis of fraud as his evidence was manipulated by the learned Willis J.
At issue is whether funds allegedly due to a Zimbabwean company, SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM), whose control and management was divested by an act of state could assert stolen rights in SA, this question was then answered by Justice Makume as a non-issue and more importantly that SA was open to recognize and enforce laws that offend public policy.
It is trite that international law probits the enforcement and recognition of penal and confiscatory laws that were created through administrative fiat yet Makume J ruled otherwise.
He refused to admit as evidence bank statement that exposed the fraud prosecuted by the GOZ using a reputable law firm like ENS Africa and Brink, Cohen Le Roux who knowingly and intentionally with intent to induce the SA courts to grant a judgment tainted by fraud in favor of the GOZ.
The driving force behind the attack on the SA constitution was Ms. Kirsty Simpson:
Advocate Chris Bothma was the Advocate who acted on the matter at all material times:
Mr. Manikai of DMH, a close friend of President Mnangagwa briefed the SA lawyers based on a fraudulent claim that a South African company, Southern Asbestos Sales Pty Limited (SAS) had paid funds allegedly due to SMM, the Zimbabwean company whose directors and directors were alienated from the company, and in so doing made the company an organ of the GOZ, to Petter Trading Pty Limited (Petter) during May to December 2004.
Dr. Sanangura controlled the financial affairs of SAS and his evidence was that no funds were paid by SAS to Petter during the period.
Notwithstanding, the absence of evidence, Mr. Manikai who has admitted as follows:
It is self-evident that according to Manikai, the capture of SMM was pursuant to a fightback strategy following a major political fallout between President Mnangagwa and the shareholder of SMM, Mr. Mutumwa Mawere, a South African citizen of Zimbabwean heritage.
Mr. Mupasiri initially requested President Mnangagwa to take steps to ensure that the version presented above by Manikai be tested with facts so that the corruption of judges like Makume J could be exposed, was compelled to approach the Constitutional Court seeking the Court to determine whether the refusal and failure of President Mnangagwa constituted a breach of his oath of office.
This complaint is pending before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe under Case Number CCZ 34/21.
Manikai whose picture is presented below refused to bring the CC into his knowledge regarding the facts and people involved in the corrupt scheme that resulted in the expropriation of property rights:
Now turning to Makume J, below is what Makume J who apparently is considered knowledgeable on corporate matters stated that SAS had failed to pay to SMM the amount of $18,464,595.27 which amount was taken from another judgment tainted by fraud committed by Epstein AJ (as he was known) when any independent and impartial judge would have known that a claim against a South African company like SAS could never be in foreign currency.
When this misdirection of facts is taken against the reality that the relationship between SMM and SAS was that of a principal and agent involving SAS being a commission agent, no competent judge would have associated himself with the illegality inherent in this bizarre finding.
The absurdity and criminality inherent in the Makume J judgment are further exposed in paragraph 27 which repeats the nonsense and illiteracy in the statement: “Two companies SAS and Petter as Mawere companies,” when any competent would and ought to have known that limited liability companies are based on the separation of shareholders and the companies in which they hold shares.
Dr. Sanangura stated in his letter to ACJ Zondo that the shareholder of SAS and Petter was not Mawere but a South African company, AR Projects Services (Pty) Limited.
Dr. Sanangura who lost a job with others as a direct consequence of a corrupt judiciary alleged that Makume J did not rely on evidence adduced in court but simply copied and pasted sections of Willis J and other judges like Epstein to arrive at a pre-determined finding.
“I was flabbergasted and embarrassed to read the failure or refusal by Makume J to use his common sense, logic, and reason when he relied on Epstein and Willis J’s finding that Mawere did not plead when Mawere was not a director of SAS at the material time and as such the control of Petter and SAS was vested in its directors but the Judge clearly had a vendetta against Mawere, the person, and any rational and impartial judge would simply have asked SMM to provide evidence in support of its claim that SAS, a company I worked for, had paid R18 million had paid the R18 million to Petter before the Van Oosten order that he issued on 6 May 2004.
Makume deliberately ignored my evidence on paragraph 94 of the Willis J in which it is explicitly stated that I told the court that the said amount was paid before the signing of the cession agreement that preceded the cession court order.
Notwithstanding, my uncontested evidence, both Willis and Makume J seemed to have colluded to dismiss my evidence without placing the burden on the captured SMM to provide evidence that the claim prosecuted was bona fide.
I have never seen judges behave in the despicable manner that was openly and defiantly displayed by the two judges,” said Dr. Sanangura.
Below is Dr. Sanangura’s evidence that Makume J failed, refused, and neglected to take into account before dismissing the rescission application.
Makume J with no shame at all concluded as follows: