Connect with us



Caroline Du Plessis



In a leaked audio, Mr. Gwede Mantashe, the Chairman of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), repeated what he asserted in Victoria Falls in June 2022 that crime knows no nationality and that the focus should be combating crime rather than venting the war against Zimbabweans https://www.news24.com/news24/africa/news/crime-knows-no-nationality-you-must-deal-with-criminals-not-zimbabweans-gwede-mantashe-20220601.

In this audio, the ANC National Chairman, Gwede Mantashe, accuses Mutumwa Mawere, former Chairman of the Rivonia Heroes Ward 106 ANC Branch, of being selfish and inconsiderate when he raised the issue of the blanket targeting of Zimbabweans as key contributors to criminality in South Africa, not considerate to the reality of the invasion of South Africa:

https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/F6GYE – https://pol.boaf.cloud/post/419

Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, Director of the Justice Under Rule of Law initiative (JUROL) said: “I listened to the audio and chats between Mr. Mawere and Hon. Mantashe three times to better understand the import of what Hon. Mantashe was saying especially having regard to the state of play in relation to the Zimbabwean immigration equation.

Below is a thread of my chat with Hon. Mantashe as a follow up to the chilling message in the audio:

[22/08, 09:19] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: Greetings Honourable. I am very much concerned about your utterances in a time when we as African sons are vying for an inclusive and one Africa.

[22/08, 10:36] Gwede Mantashe: I will not engage on this matter anymore. The debate is South Africa absorbing the load. You all expect us not to have views. We must accept your views as given though bias against us

[22/08, 10:40] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: I will call you back Honourable in about 2 hours

Hon. Mantashe’s opinion rests on the premise that South Africa is a victim of the Zimbabwean immigration load factor and this poses a national threat to the stability of South Africa if not reversed and consequently the hysteria associated with the anti-foreigner campaigns is justified in the circumstances.

The above communication was then followed by the thread below:

[22/08, 10:40] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: I will call you back Honourable in about 2 hours

[22/08, 10:48] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: My network is bad. You can try a normal call through +263771231888

[22/08, 11:27] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: Hon

I hear you and I have no intention to argue with you on this national question.

As the Chairman of JUROL Public Policy Initiative, I compelled to drill down this issue so that hopefully the current self-evident lack of shared understanding on citizenship, nationality and the politics in the two may be used as reference by the community of so-called foreigners who chose to work and live in South Africa in guiding the decisions and actions on staying or leaving as the case may be.

You assert that SA is a victim as it is absorbing the load of persons with no value to add to the project to build an open, transparent, caring, prosperous, and accountable South Africa.

I appreciate your conclusion that SA is unfairly bearing the burden and as such the inescapable conclusion is that the rule of law must be suspended to permit the creation of a new human identity called a FOREIGNER when the constitution provides otherwise.

I am shocked that a public office bearer like you would openly assert a proposition that is inimical to the constitution.

I have no difficulty with you have your own views but will not accept you holding views that are contrary to your oath of office.

We are all compelled to uphold, defend, respect and obey the constitution as the supreme law of SA.

This debate is not limited to your personal view which I respect but is focused on what kind of Africa I wish to be a part of and what should be the role of public office bearers in shaping and defining it.

I am disturbed that you would state that: “You all expect us not to have views,” when the spirit of this engagement is precisely to hear each other on issues that expose our inability to debate issues and not the persons in the dialogue.

I have no wish to expect you to accept my views as given but I expect both of us to be guided by the facts and the relevant facts.

I am battling to understand and comprehend the import of your THEM and US narrative as if to suggest that humanity can be divided into a binary.

Who is you? I would have thought that SA belongs to all who live in it and the constitution protects even murderers.

I want an Africa in which if I am walking on the streets of any city in the country, I am presumed to be innocent and a person rather than a street infested with vigilantes who believe and act as if they are above the law.

The protection of the law and the right to benefit from its protection must inform your and my views on what is right and wrong.

It is not acceptable that you believe that your views are the law.

I never expected that I would hear this view from a servant of the people including the so-called foreigners who are subjected to SA tax laws among other laws.

I trust you will find the above in order.

[22/08, 11:35] Gwede Mantashe: I see a great effort to blackmail me into submission. Anyway Home Affairs ministries are dealing this matter. You are equal trying to define the public office in South Africa You are silent on Zim constitutionakuty

[22/08, 11:52] Gwede Mantashe: 171 foreigners nabbed for illegal entering Zombabwe

[22/08, 11:59] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: Thank you honourable for your view, but I may want to draw you to certain facts

Answering on your view that I have been part of the bystanders in Zimbabwe with regards to the abuse of public office bearers, I would humbly submit to you that: –

1. Before, I launched the mentioned cases with South African Courts, I approached President Mnangagwa calling for his version regarding the chilling averments made by his lawyer and confidante Manikai, who was the chief architect in the extra territorial application of the Zimbabwean draconian and confiscatory law, the Reconstruction Act in South Africa.

2.On the 17th of December 2021, I launched a court application in terms of s167(2)(d) as read with s167(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013.

3. In this application I challenged the conduct of the President which in my view was inconsistent with his oath of office, which is to uphold, defend, respect and obey the Constitution as per the dictates of s90 of the very constitution we have in Zimbabwe.

3. The contents of his lawyers’ averments were that the fall of a Zimbabwean company called SMM was as result of a political fallout between the person of Mutumwa Mawere and ED (President Mnangagwa) and this led to the loss of jobs to over 20,000 direct employees and 100,000 people who benefited from it indirectly.

4. It should be noted that the company in 2003 had a turnover of over 400million United States Dollars annually.

5.It is this causal link that exists between Zimbabwe and South Africa that the courts of South Africa were used by the Government of Zimbabwe to divest directors and shareholders of private companies both in South Africa & Zimbabwe of the control and management.

5. When this happened, I was only 22 years old and when I got the wind of what happened I did not by stand but approached courts seeking for the President to give his own version.

I may share with you if interested so that you appreciate the spirit in which I am engaging you.

I am not fighting you and it is not cultural for me to do so.

I am only engaging you with the hope of attaining a shared understanding on issues that matter towards one, United Africa.

Following the above thread, I unexpectedly received the following message:

[22/08, 12:01] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: I saw a missed call. You can now call. Thank you

[22/08, 12:04] Gwede Mantashe: I won’t phone. You record calls which is malicious.

[22/08, 12:10] Prof. Mupasiri Zimbabwe: I thought I had missed a call from you Honourable in which you wanted to hear my side of the story.

This was the end of my conversation with Hon. Mantashe and the tragedy is that as a public office bearer, he is oblivious of his constitutional duty to obey, uphold, respect, defend the constitutional as the supreme law of the country.

I have had to familiarize myself with public policy issues that arise from the sentiments expressed by Hon. Mantashe.

I came across this opposing affidavit deposed to by the Director General of the Department of Home Affairs, Mr. Luvhuwani Tommy Makhode, in response to an application launched by the Helen Suzman Foundation under Case Number 32323/22 for a review and setting aside the decision by the DHA not to blanket renew the expiring Zimbabwe Exemption Permits (ZEPs).

A copy of the affidavit is located here: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/753e0fd6a9.html.

It is important, however, to highlight as set out below that the sentiments expressed by Hon. Mantashe are at variance with the provisions of s1 of the Constitution of South Africa.

I shudder to think what would happen if a black person of Zimbabwean heritage were to apply for a prospecting or mining permit, whether Hon. Mantashe would conduct himself in an independent and impartial manner as prescribed by the Constitution.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Warning: Undefined variable $user_ID in /home/iniafrica/public_html/wp-content/themes/zox-news/comments.php on line 49

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply