Connect with us


As the Supreme Court dismisses Ziyambi Ziyambi’s Hwange Colliery appeal, President Mnangagwa’s henchman, Gwaradzimba defends the Reconstruction Act used against SMM as a perfect law.



In a dramatic week, the Supreme Court pronounced its opinion that a Ministerial order issued against Hwange Colloery by Ziyambi Ziyambi in 2018 was unlawful and void.

Ziyambi relied on the draconian law that was invented under his boss, President Mnangagwa, who has asserted under oath in an application launched by Professor Mupasiri on 17 December 2021 under Case Number CCZ 34/21 that the Reconstruction Act was constitutionally valid and the same reconstruction order that the Supreme Court has determined as a nullity in relation to Hwange passes the legality and constitutional muster.

The inherent constitutional crisis is self-evident but what may escape the attention of the public is the fact that President Mnangagwa’s Chief Enforcers, launched by Mupasiri in South Africa following the Malaba-led apex court’s attempt to exempt President Mnangagwa from being accountable for his admitted knowledge and involvement in the creation of this law that Professor Moyo once described as demonic and satanic law, and in it’s enforcement in relation to SMM using the agency of DMH Attorneys, the same law firm defending him in the Sybeth Musengezi party ascendancy attack, are using the prestigious SA law firm, ENS INC firm, to assert that the recognition and enforcement of this draconian Zimbabwean law in SA is lawful and constitutional.

In a group that Professor Mupasiri created to share his extraordinary experiences as a member of the Friends of Shabanie and Mashava Mines (FOSMM) group that was created as a platform to share insights using the SMM facts and circumstances as a case study to expose the role of the abuse of public power by state and non-state actors in undermining the rule of law, one of the members of the University of FOSMM, stated aptly as set out below that the Supreme Court ruling against Ziyambi has done more damage to expose the Malaba-led court that it is an enabler of President Mnangagwa’s deceitful conduct.

As stated above, in an open and accountable governance system, President Mnangagwa would be compelled to address the nation on the implications of the Supreme Court decision on his position in relation to the Mupasiri application.

Gwaradambia’s response to the SA litigation is set out in his affidavit that he signed on 3 August 2022 set out on this link

Did you know that a Zimbabwean law was recognized and enforced in South Africa using the agency of ENS Inc, a prestigious South African law firm?

https://iniafrica.com/index.php/2022/08/05/professor-mupasiri-exposes-gwaradzimba-and-his-masters-in-the-government-of-zimbabwe-in-the-high-court-of-south-africa/ – https://pol.boaf.cloud/post/315.

It will be noted that he deposed to this affidavit relying on the validity of a reconstruction order that the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has ruled that it was unconstitutional and invalid.

He asserts that the authority, power, right, and relationship with SMM Holdings Private Limited are based on the validity and enforceability of an extra-judicial order that Chinamasa, Mnangagwa’s partner in the coup project, issued in relation to SMM whose effect was to divest and deprive the shareholders and directors of its control and management.

Ir is trite that Zimbabwean laws have no extra-territorial application yet in this case Gwaradzimba on the advice of DMH is arguing that the plethora of SA judgments granted in relation to the post-state-induced hijack of the control and management of SMM and related entities should stand and be protected notwithstanding the admitted fact and now a judgment of the Zimbabwean superior court that the order in question is unlawful and void.

It is significant that in a pending application by FOSMM in SA, President Ramaphisa has asserted that he sees no Ukraine-style invasion of the SA jurisdiction when facts were brought to his attention that the existence of SA judgments in relation to any post-hijack of SMM in 2004 confirms the complicity of the SA justice system in recognizing and enforcing rights in relation to SMM that were acquired by the force of a law that President Mnangagwa has already under oath confirmed to be legitimate and lawful.

Against the above-mentioned Supreme Court judgment, the spotlight is now on the SA judiciary to pronounce its position on whether judgments that exist based on illegality and fraud committed using the agency of ENS INC can stand as lawful.

Equally, the impeachment proceedings under Case Number CCZ 27/22 launched by Mr. Mawere against President Mnangagwa that the Malaba-led court is trying frantically to dismiss take the spotlight.

In this matter, President Mnangagwa has been called upon to explain how he got access to the Mupasiri application that was never served on him.

He is also asked to explain his relationship with Manikai in relation to the affairs of SMM.

He is also being asked to explain how DMH was appointed to prosecute his opposition to the Mupasiri application when no facts exist that the AG had knowledge of the application and was involved in the appointment of the firm.

The constitutional question that has arisen based on the facts that are before the court is whether President Mnangagwa has title and jurisdiction to appoint DMH to act in a matter involving his conduct as President without the knowledge and involvement of the AG

It is worth highlighting that in relation to the Mupasiri constitutional attack, the Malaba-led court came to the rescue of President Mnangagwa by knowingly and intentionally exempting President Mnangagwa from responding to the allegations made by Mupasiri that he acted unlawfully by authorizing DMH to substitute the role of the AG in prosecuting his opposition.

DMH is a firm that is directly implicated in the SMM affairs in which public power that the Supreme Court has ruled as void and invalid was used to divest and deprive of rights was weaponized with impunity.

The public interest question that arises is whether the agency of DMH in prosecuting a matter on behalf of President Mnangagwa is not contemptuous of the rule of law.

Malaba seems to hold the view that President Mnangagwa must not be held accountable for his conduct in choosing a conflicted agent in prosecuting, his defence leading to the question of whether the relationship between Manikai and President Mnangagwa is in the interests of justice especially having regard to the undisputed fact that Mupasiri’s matters have exposed who the de factor AG of Zimbabwe is.

Notwithstanding, the fact that SMM under reconstruction’s authority was challenged, DMH remains the President’s sole legal representative.

Should this blatant disregard of the constitution by a sitting President be allowed in an open and accountable system of government? HELL NO!


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


When President Mnangagwa signed a document purporting to be his mate, see the reality?



Continue Reading


Hopewell Chin’ono’s Hypocrisy Exposed by Mr. Tinashe Mpasiri



On 24 November 2022, Mr. Hopewell Chin’ono shared this tweet on his wall: https://twitter.com/daddyhope/status/1595758807392534528?s=20&t=YflO7bnB-32EN89x_0fPfQ with the following message directed to nameless and faceless South Africans:

“What we ask from South African citizens is for your President to STOP sanitizing Corrupt Rule in Zimbabwe and to STOP lying that our economy was destroyed by sanctions Listen to our President speak about the LOOTING in 1996.

Why doesn’t your president speak about free elections?”

The above mentioned tweet led to a conversation between Mr. Mpasiri, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) and Mr. Chin’ono as set out on this link: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/d47b109920.html.

When asked why he had chosen to share a video of 1996 in support of his narrative that President Ramaphosa was guilty of sanitizing the corrupt practices by President Mnangagwa and his administration, Mr. Chin’ono responded as follows:

“ZPF leading Public officials operate with criminal business partners to loot public resources. For all intents and purposes sanctions are not the cause of Zim economic quagmire but ZPF looting public purse thru its puppet business partners from as far back as 1996?”

Advocate Matiza, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law made the following observations and also a participant in the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF) – Legal Literacy WhatsApp group, commended as follows: “It is clear from the above that by importing the video in which Mr. Mawere was featured with Minister Mnangagwa as he was known then, Mr. Chin’ono was openly alleging that Mr. Mawere was Mnangagwa’s then criminal business partner who was his accomplice in looting public resources of Zimbabwe.

However, when exposed by Mr. Mpasiri, a member of JUROL and BOAF, Mr. Chin’ono backtracked as set out below:

TM: Good morning Mr Chin’ono.
My name is Tinashe Mpasiri and I am a member of the Justice Under Rule Of Law (JUROL).
I am an avid follower of your posts and exposé and certainly wish that there were more
Zimbabweans like you, working towards a diverse, inclusive, progressive and prosperous future
for all.
I just wanted to greet you and share with you a post that was shared in a group I am a part of,
that you may be able to shed more light on it.
HC: Thank you. I did an interview last night on the issue. Feel free to share it in your group
Find it here;
TM: Thank you very much sir.
Just for your information, I belong to a group with officials from Wits University and questions
arose yesterday after your sharing of the video.
I have been asked to communicate with you so I get clarity, so we can share with a proper
Your narrative on the tweet is about president Ramaphosa’s failure to act on corruption in
Zimbabwe, but the content of the video, appears nothing to do with the corruption angle.
Kindly assist with the link between the two.
HC: Good morning. Thank you for the question and you can share this audio in your group, you have my permission.
President Ramophosa has been at the forefront of saying incorrectly that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe has been caused by sanctions, which is not true.
The video that you are referencing, is meant to show that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe
started way before sanctions were imposed by western countries.
The economic crisis was authored by looting of public funds by ZANU PF elites and their business surrogates and the plunder of the country’s natural resources.
That video shows president Mnangagwa when he was Finance Minister in 1996, speaking at an event in Washington explaining how public funds have been looted.
So my point is that the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa shouldn’t be going around
misleading unsuspecting audiences, by saying that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe is being
caused by sanctions.
So for instance, president Ramaphosa talks about the social services pressures that are exerted by Zimbabweans coming into South Africa to use things like public services like health care. And all hospitals in Zimbabwe, all central hospitals in Zimbabwe, five of them, they only require 50 million to run without any shortages and that will make sure that Zimbabweans don’t have to cross the border into South Africa to seek public services that are provided through hospitals but these hospitals in Zimbabwe don’t have paracetamol.
The biggest hospital in Zimbabwe, Sally Mugabe hospital does not even have paracetamol, it
doesn’t have basic things like bandages and 50 million is only, that’s all we need to run our
central hospitals, but it’s not being availed to these central hospitals.
Now, ZANU PF by its own admission, says that 150 million USD worth of gold is being smuggled by ZANU PF elites and their surrogates every month. Which means what they steal in one month can run our central hospitals for 3 years.
That is the point that I making that president Ramaphosa is misleading unsuspecting audiences by saying that the crisis in Zimbabwe which is over spilling into South Africa, is being caused by sanctions, it’s not true it’s caused by sanctions. It’s caused by mis-governance. Thank you.
TM: Thank you very much Mr. Chin’ono.
This is very helpful and I believe we can build a shared understanding of only when we engage.
I will share your insights in my circles and beyond.
A number of questions emerge from your audio. By surrogates and having had the benefit to watch the video, who would be the surrogates and especially having regard to the fact that Minister Mnangagwa (as he were then), was speaking to a different subject matter involving empowerment and the role of government in financing it.
I could be wrong, but it is self-evident that he was talking about government programs whose
execution resulted in financial support being diverted to personal use.
Your response to the above would greatly assist.
HC: Surrogates were people like Mutumwa Mawere who was his front until they fell out.
Today surrogates refers to people like Kuda Tagwirei who has been a front for State looting
using his myriad of companies.

Here Mr. Chin’ono identifies Mr. Mawere as Mnangagwa’s front until they allegedly fell out.

This narrative is similar to the one peddled by Chin’ono’s friend and President Mnangagwa’s confidante and lawyer, Mr. Edwin Manikai as follows:

The message above was authored by Mr. Manikai on 27 March 2021 and was addressed to Mr. Fred Mutanda. The version peddled by Mr. Chin’ono is the same as Manikai’s version.
Mr. Manikai in the middle with Mr. Hopewell Chin’ono
Mr. Manikai in the picture with the visiting American delegation of Senators to Zimbabwe and his wife and Hon. Mliswa, Manikai’s best friend.
The SMM heist gang who authored and executed the divestment and deprivation of the control of 26 companies employing 20,000 people in 2004 using public power described as the precursor to the coup of November 2017 that was orchestrated by the same gang against Mugabe after successfully prosecuting the coup against SMM and related entities.

TM: Thank you for the honest response and obviously when I watched the video, I could not make the link between Mutumwa Mawere and the looting.
Perhaps you can share evidence supporting the allegation of surrogacy and the corruption
therefore in, so that I can afford both president Mnangagwa and Mawere to give their own
account of the precise nature of the alleged link between public power and private benefit.
Unfortunately, the video’s content does not establish the causal link which is vital in determining any dispute in an Independent and impartial manner.
HC: I didn’t say Mutumwa was corrupt.
I said that there were public funds that were doled out which amounted to looting.
You are misinterpreting what I said.
The video has nothing to do with Mutumwa being corrupt, it was meant to illustrate how public funds were looted way before sanctions.

Hopewell denies what he said before and claims the video that he intentionally and constructively shared to demonstrate the origins of Mnangagwa’s corruption had nothing to with Mawere being party to the looting of public funds.

TM: Thank you for clarifying and I am intrigued by your response.
You have asserted as true and fact that Mawere was Mnangagwa front and this aspect is not
evident in the video, suggesting that evidence exists that the alleged fronting you are talking
about, is supported by concrete evidence which is required in any bona fide process, seeking to hold people accountable for their conduct or misconduct. I would be grateful if you can identify in precise terms what Mawere front for Mnangagwa.

Mr. Chin’ono on SABC repeating the narrative of corruption as the cause of the Zim crisis.

Advocate Jack Matiza who was incensed by Mr. Chin’ono’s utterances remarked asked: “How can he be held responsible and accountable for social media post that damage another person reputation? My take is Hopewell is also guilty of selective amnesia he is accusing Ramaphosa of when it comes to sanctions, by stating that Mutumwa Mawere was an front of ED without providing any proof to that. Our self acclaimed award winning journalist and human right defender…ought to know that he who alleges must prove, is he not using or abusing social media or public media platforms to make unfounded statements without allowing the accused an opportunity to air their side of the story is itself an abuse of that person’s basic human rights?
To which Mr. Mawere responded as follows: “What if there exists no shared understanding on what are the obligations and rights of citizenship? What Hopewell could be saying is that information that he may possess is true and fact unless proved otherwise because he holds a privileged position in society as a journalist. In this case, affinity politics would compel him to conclude that because I shared the same platform with the current President of Zimbabwe this reality confirms a generally corrupt relationship. You can imagine what the true import of state capture and the legal consequences arising for its existence.”
Advocate Matiza by stating as follows: “There is certainly need to actively contribute to development of such shared understanding and common standards.”
Mr. Mawere commended as follows: “If asked to explain why the conversation is intriguing, what would be your response?

Mr Chin’ono genuinely believes that CORRUPTION is the elephant in the room.

He hold the view that he occupies a special and exceptional position in relation to the affairs of Zimbabwe.

He has a view on the 1996 video.”

When asked by Mr. Mawere, what identified questions arise from the hypocrisy inherent in Mr. Chin’ono’s open attack against Mawere and when confronted by Mr. Manikai, he quickly denied what he had stated as true and fact, Advocate Matiza responded as follows:

1. Abuse of the profession of journalism by an acclaimed journalist who has no respect for the truth in his narratives.

2.How should one define a human rights defender especially having exposed Mr. Chin’ono’s embarrassing performance by first alleging that Mnangagwa was using Mawere as a front only to backtrack and deny his own bold assertions.

3.In the face of hypocrites masquerading as award-winning journalists, what should be the best response to deal with divisive characters who have captured the profession and are using it as a weapon to advance their ulterior motives?

4. Section 2 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe imposes a binding obligation on every person to ensure that the rule of law is promoted, protected and upheld and in this case, what should be done by ordinary citizens to ensure that people like Mr. Chin’ono are accountable for their conduct which is inimical to the rule of law?

5. Does a person like Mr. Chin’ono know that he is also subject to the constitution and possesses no title or authority to maliciously defame other people. How best can he be held accountable for his reckless and dangerous assertions he makes under the cover that he is a journalist par excellence?

6. Does his conduct based on Mpasiri’s excellent interrogation not fall within conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution of Zimbabwe?

Continue Reading


Please take notice of this announcement by ZIMRA



Continue Reading