Connect with us


10 Lessons From The Hen – Bawinile Nyembe



I believe the Bible is a book of principles, as pastor Morgan always says, “The word BIBLE stands for Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth”. Taking this note into account our Topic for today’s intercession is 10 Lessons from the Hen.

  1. Lesson Number 1: GOOD PLANNING
  • The Hen First Lays enough Eggs before she sits on them

The Book of Proverbs 21:5 reads (New Living Translation) “Good planning and hard work lead to prosperity, but hasty shortcuts lead to poverty

  • Lesson Number 2: DISCIPLINE
  • When the Hen starts sitting on her eggs, she minimizes movement.

The Book of 1st Timothy 4:7 reads, “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness

  • Lesson Number 3: SACRIFICE & SELF DENIAL
  • The Hen Physically Loses weight while sitting on her eggs due to decreased feeding.

The Book of Colossians 2:23 says (New Living Translation), “These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.”

  • A Hen can sit on eggs from another Hen.

The Book of Proverbs 22:9 says (New Living Translation), “Blessed are those who are generous, because they feed the poor.”

  • Lesson Number 5: FAITH, HOPE & COURAGE

The Hen sits on her eggs for 21 days, patiently waiting and even if they do not hatch, she will lay eggs again.

The Book of Romans 8:24 says, “For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?”

  • Lesson Number 6: SENSITIVE & DISCERNING
  • The Hen can detect unfertilized eggs and rolls them out.

The Book of Job 34:4 says, “Let us discern for ourselves what is right; let us learn together what is good”

  • The Hen abandons the rotten eggs and starts caring for the hatched chicks, even if it is only 1.

The Book of Mark 12:34 says, When Jesus saw that the man answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” But after that no one dared question Him.

  • Lesson Number 8: PROTECTIVE LOVE
  • No one can touch the Hen’s Chick.

The Book of Psalms 121:5-6 says,The LORD is your keeper; the LORD is the shade on your right hand. The sun will not strike you by day, nor the moon by night”

  • Lesson Number 9: UNITY of PURPOSE
  • The Hen gathers all her Chicks together.

The Book of Romans 15:5 says, “May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus

  1. Lesson Number 10: MENTORING
  • The Hen Never abandons her chicks before they Mature. 

The Book of Titus 2:6-8 says, “Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech, which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us

The book of Luke 13:34 (Good News Translation) says “Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets; you stone the messengers God has sent you! How many times I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me!

I believe from today going forward into the Easters we will all not only learn from the HEN, but we will apply these lessons such that we can allow God to put his hand amongst us all just like the hen gathers her chicken under her wings.


Sermon Script Writer: Bawinile Nyembe

Proof Reader: Pastor Morgan Lekgetho Mogagabe

Address: Chiawelo Ext3, Soweto, South Africa

Ministry: IHPMI, © 2022 Bawinile Nyembe

Bawinile Nyembe is a Quantity Surveyor and an entrepreneur. She holds a Diploma in Building and a B-Tech in Quantity Surveying degree from University of Johannesburg-South Africa.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


IDC’s Tshepo Ramodibe Cornered



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.


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


Mupasiri v President Mnangagwa CCZ 34/21 – The search for the truth



On 17 December 2021, Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri launched a court application in terms of s167(2)(d) as read with s167(3) of the Constitution asking the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe (CCZ) to determine if President Mnangagwa failed to fulfill his constitutional obligations by failing and/or refusing to respond with facts regarding his state of knowledge and the extent of his personal involvement in the use of the reconstruction law, a law that was specifically created to deal with Mutumwa Mawere, to divest and deprive shareholders and directors of the control and direction of their companies.

Court application in terms of S167(2)(d) as read with s167(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

In response to this application, President Mnangagwa states that the facts he deposed to are known to him and are true and correct yet in reality, he discloses nothing known to him although he admits possessing knowledge that should allow the CCZ to determine whether the decision to use the reconstruction act was motivated by any public interest or was triggered by a major political fallout that Manikai, who is the Second Respondent in the matter, said occurred as a matter of fact between Mawere and Mnangagwa.

In this article, we deal with whether the allegation made by President Mnangagwa that it is incompetent on account of the fact that it relates to his alleged conduct prior to the date he became President and as such cannot be scrutinized in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Constitution.

President Mnangagwa asserts that the application is not about his breach of the oath that compels him to tell the truth and nothing but the truth regarding the question of the day – Was he involved or not in the use of the reconstruction act as a weapon to punish and destroy?



  1. I now turn to deal with the First Respondent’s answering affidavit. I do not intent to deal with every averment therein. However, any failure to reply to any specific averment should not be construed as an admission thereof.

Ad paragraph 2

  • The allegation that my application is an abuse of court process is denied. This Application is intended to test whether the First Respondent’s capricious, dismissive, contemptuous, arrogant and judgmental approach to a citizen like me who is searching for the truth regarding the serious and prejudicial remarks made against him by the Second Respondent, is consistent with the obligations imposed upon him by the Constitution.
  • It is significant that the First Respondent whose duty is to uphold the rule of law has already dismissed my application outside the four corners of the Court.
  • It is quite evident that the supremacy of the Constitution is not relevant to him,
  • The First Respondent is not above the law and instead of adopting the posture of being subject to the law by giving his statement of truth detailing his state of knowledge and involvement in the affairs of SMM and the use of public power to create the facts and circumstances of a state-assisted destruction of companies and jobs, he attacks.
  • It is my submission that the First Respondent enjoys no privilege to protect him from disclosing what he knows and his involvement in this matter that may help to explain his role in giving birth to a morality inherent in the Reconstruction Laws that is inimical to the rule of law and which enjoins the judiciary to refuse to acquiesce to any actions that aids and abets the tyranny underpinning any law that is based on any contracting party to benefit self-help and confirm this barbaric and animalist choices in a court of law.
  • The active attack on the rule of law should not be tolerated at all lest this creates a new precedent of an unaccountable system of governance.
  • I am shocked that the First Respondent would have the audacity to attack my application meant to insulate him from a cabal of criminals that include the Second Respondent whose despicable conduct undermines the justice delivery system.

Ad paragraph 3

  • It is denied that my application is bad in law and fact.

Ad paragraph (a)(4)

  1. It is admitted that my application is confined to the alleged breach of the duty by the First Respondent to fulfil his constitutional obligation to uphold the rule of law by intentionally and knowingly associating himself with scandalous characters like the Second Respondent who has used his name to commit serious and punishable crimes with impunity in the name of SMM reconstruction. It is denied that this application is not what is stated in it. The use of the term “ostensible” is unfortunate.

Ad paragraph 4.1

  1. It is denied that the application is incompetent on account of the fact that it allegedly relates to the First Respondent’s conduct before November 2017 or before he became President of Zimbabwe.
  2. The dispute is centred around his conduct in relation to the scandalous allegations of his involvement in giving life to the reality of his refusal and failure to be the guardian in the search of the truth, a central pillar of the rule of law, especially having regard of the causal link between the existence and operation of the Reconstruction Act and its prosecution under his watch. Had this law been offensive to his sense of morality, it would have suffered the same fate like the Indigenisation Law that was repealed without any judicial involvement.
  3. The First Respondent owes a duty to the Rule of Law and not to anything else. To the extent that he possesses knowledge that is essential for this Court to exercise its discretion on the question of his alleged breach of oath, one would expect him to assist this exercise done in the interests of justice to openly and transparently give his own account of his knowledge and involvement.
  4. Clearly, the First Respondent is not denying his involvement in the affairs of SMM as alleged by the Second Respondent.
  5. He is saying that his state of knowledge should be kept out of this justiciable dispute. I am not the one who has fingered him in this scandal but his trusted lawyer, an oath taking person, has already given a version that the First Respondent has no problem borrowing public power for ulterior and personal ends.
  6. It cannot be disputed that in the quest for the truth and accountability, this Court ought to be the final arbiter of what evidence is admissible or not yet in this case, the First Respondent believes otherwise.
  7. It is not clear on what legal authority he asserts that he should not be accountable for refusing or failing to assist the just and proper determination of my application with information that he does not deny he possesses.
  8. It is not my intention to hold the First Respondent accountable for conduct that preceded his assumption of the office of President but to benefit from his own version of what he knows and why he would find my application offensive if in truth and fact, his involvement in relation to the Reconstruction matters was always informed by a public interest.


Continue Reading


Justice Makarau a captured judge or an independent and impartial judge, Mukoma Masimba asks



On 14 October 2020, during the height of the pandemic, Mukoma Masimba, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) who is based in Australia battled with the rationality of a judgment granted in relation to Zimre Holdings Limited (ZHL), a listed company on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE) whose control and direction was altered by a self-help scheme that received the nod by Justice Makarau resulting in him penning an article to express his embarrassment that a judge who took an oath to defend, uphold, respect and obey the Constitution would surrender her integrity and put the entire judicial system into disrepute without anyone noticing.

Q: What was the matter about?

MM: This matter involved 4 parties i.e. THZ Holdings Limited, a company registered in terms of the UK laws, ZHL, ZSE, and a creature of statute in the name of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM) under the control of a state-appointed Administrator, Mr. Afaras Gwaradzimba as set out below:

The two matters were consolidated into one matter. The Presiding Judge was Makarau J (as she was then).

Q: Is there anything unusual in the parties to the suit?

MM: Indeed there is. THZH is not a direct shareholder of ZHL and as such, I would be concerned that a grandfather of ZHL is a litigant in Zimbabwe in relation to the affairs of a grandchild, so to say. I am also surprised that the late Chris Andersen acted for Mr. A.M. Gwaradzimba (in his capacity as the purported Administrator of THZH), a UK-registered company.

The only explanation for this absurd construction is that what is prohibited by international law, which is a law of Zimbabwe, was permitted in this instance to allow a Zimbabwean law to have extraterritorial application.

I am still trying to understand the relationship between an Administrator appointed by a Minister and a company, a juristic entity that is a creature of law.

It is trite that the control and management of a company are vested in its directors, who are in turn appointed by its shareholders.

The effect of a reconstruction order is to divest and deprive shareholders and directors of the control and management of a company.

It follows that the administrator and directors are mutually exclusive. A company cannot have two centers of power.

What I have learned in our University of FOSMM platform is that a company without shareholders and directors is no company at all and this raises the question as to what becomes of a company whose shareholders and directors are removed as a consequence of non-judicial proceedings?

This is the question that I expected the Learned Judge to pose to Gwaradzimba when he purportedly published a notice in the local press announcing that ZHL was under his administration.

Below is an extract of the first paragraph of Makarau J’s judgment:

This was an urgent application. The transfer of control from directors and shareholders to a creature called an Administrator did not follow any due process of the law.

Q: If you were Makarau J, what would have been your immediate reaction to the fact that shareholders and directors of ZHL were divested and deprived of their legal nexus with the company in terms of The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures)(Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies)(Regulations 2004.

A: I would have been outraged by Gwaradzimba’s audacity to approach a court of law after having engaged in a self-help scheme.

I call this self-help because he determined that ZHL must be placed under his control without notifying the affected company prior to the issuance of this extrajudicial order.

I would have interrogated Gwaradzimba to provide the legal authority that permitted him to issue a limiting order in relation to a juristic entity that is recognized as such by law.

I would have queried the legality of regulations overcoming the limitations imposed by the constitution that only judicial orders carry the limiting power in relation to the rights and freedoms of affected parties.

The decision by a judge to postpone a matter before the court is highly questionable and problematic.

I understand that during the court proceedings held last week, Makarau JCC was asked by Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri to explain under what circumstances a pedestrian like Gwaradzimba was able to enjoy the attention of the Court, especially having regard that he had no shareholding relationship with ZHL to permit the court to afford him any rights including that of postponing the matter to allow him to make any representations.

This to me constitutes a RED FLAG and exposes the Learned Judge’s partiality and disdain for the rule of law.

The legal and constitutional basis on which the Learned Judge made a call that Gwaradzimba should be joined in proceedings in which ZHL, Endurite, UKI, ZHL were interested parties baffles me.

Q: What is the significance of the ruling by Makarau J to postpone the hearing of the dispute brought by THZH to consider whether Gwaradzimba should be joined as a party?

MM: Makarau JCC already showed her hand by anticipating what would follow and did follow that Gwaradzimba notwithstanding the fact that SMM had no shareholding relationship with ZHL let alone Gwaradzimba had the authority and incumbency to act as a representative of a company whose control and management had been hijacked by an act of state.

What Gwaradzimba was asked to administer could not have been a company by any description?

A company is a creature of a Companies Act, which must be a law of general application. The whole reconstruction affair creates no company at all and as such a company indebted to a creditor, does not become a new creature that is recognizable in any constitutional republic.

As I will demonstrate in Part 11 of this conversation with a layman like me, I will demonstrate that Makarau JCC acted ultra vires the constitution and her oath by recognizing the authority of Gwaradzimba to act as a representative of a captured company.

I will also compare and contrast the attitude of Makarau JCC compared to how Mangota J acted when asked to confirm a reconstruction order that Minister Ziyambi had issued in relation to Hwange Colliery Company Limited (Hwangwe).

It is my contention that Makarau JJ had no jurisdiction to recognize and assert any purported rights that Gwaradzimba, in his capacity as a state organ, had in relation to the affairs of ZHL.

Continue Reading


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