IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE PART 1: (powered by JUROL) Mupasiri V President Mnangagwa & Manikai
In a landmark case launched by Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri impeaching the president for failing to uphold the rule of law and his oath to the constitution, the supreme law of the land, for refusing to disclose the true nature of his alleged involvement and knowledge regarding the unorthodox use of public power in divesting shareholder and directors of the control and direction of companies including SMM Holdings extra-judicially.
The President is represented by the firm, DMH Attorneys, and Mr. Mupasiri is a self-actor.
The application, a landmark in the post-colonial history of Zimbabwe, is opposed by birth President Mnangagwa and Mr. Manikai, although no relief is sought from Manikai.
The significant legal and constitutional implications of the case have largely escaped the attention of the public largely because the impeachment of a President is a far fetched and ambitious goal, especially having regard to the perception and reality of a judiciary that is heavily compromised by the existence of a dominant executive branch of government.
In a dramatic twist to this matter, six Intervening Parties launched an application under Case Number 10/22 in terms Rule 51(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe (CCZ) seeking leave of the Court to intervene in the Mupasiri application under Case Number 34/21.
Justice Makarau is the Presiding Judge assigned to deal with the leave to intervene application.
The Intervening Parties have applied for the recusal of Justice Makarau in adjudicating the leave to intervene application.
Yesterday, 4 March 2022, the recusal application was held. Mr. Mutumwa Mawere, the First Intervening Party, appeared in terms and presented his case on why he believes that Justice Makarau should not preside over the determination of leave to intervene application.
JUROL in collaboration with Friends of SMM (FOSMM) is through its public engagement initiative is promoting the cause of justice under the Rule of Law and the Mupasiri matter is useful in raising awareness of the need to hold people in public offices including the President to account.
Brian Manyati, Spokesman of FOSMM, said that: “The Mupasiri application is strategic and significant in that for the first time, a citizen of Zimbabwe has stepped forward to be the voice and face of a civics literacy that no one should be above the law.
The mere fact that President Mnangagwa has responded to Mupasiri is profound and encouraging.
We are not only following the case, but we have successfully negotiated with the iniafrica.com and zwnews24.com platforms to host the useful content that is missing in the public domain.
I believe that a divided society like Zimbabwe can best be united on the basis of openness and transparency underpinned by a shared understanding that the constitution ought to be the law of all and we all should be subject to it.
WE START WITH PARAGRAPH AD 3 of the President’s answering affidavit in opposition to Mawere’s application for the recusal of Justice Makarau in adjudicating the leave to intervene application.
Mawere’s response was as follows:
President Mnangagwa took an oath to promote, protect and uphold the rule of law, yet in this matter, he is asking the apex court to use the purported defective legal standing of the Intervening Parties to be denied audience in recusal application when the dispute of who should preside over any dispute before the Court inflicts any prejudice on him.
Why should President concern himself on a matter that falls outside his knowledge? Why is President not interested in ensuring that the judiciary is guided at all materials with facts and the law in determining disputeS.
READ THE ABOVE DIVERGENT VIEWS ON USING LOCUS STANDI AS A BASIS TO DENY ACCESS TO COURTS AND JUDGE4YOURSELF.