[9/30, 9:10 PM] Tendai Mazenge: With a new President and a new government the wheels of justice are slowly turning. I think we have a good chance of making an a appeal so that TAP can recover its assets and money that was stolen by Manikai and Gwaradzimba.
[10/1, 11:36 AM] Prof Mupasiri: TAP issue clearly show the invasion of Zambia by Zimbabwe.
The looting that followed the extra territorial application of The Recon Act in Zambia is shaming and it is even worrisome that the same law firm that schemed all these thefts has been representing the President and government of Zimbabwe in all matters to do with TAP, SMM and the ascendancy matter currently before the High Court of Zimbabwe, in Harare.
[10/1, 12:30 PM] Prof Mupasiri: Tap Building Products is a private company registered according to the laws of Zambia whose shareholder and directors were divested of it control and management as a result of Zimbabwean law, The Reconstruction of State Indebted and Insolvent Companies Act.
The reconstruction targeted SMM Holdings, company operating under the laws of Zimbabwe.
A statement was issued by the then Zimbabwe Minister of Justice, Patrick Chinamasa,that all the perceived associate companies be under reconstruction and anything that had a @mdmawere1 Mawere link had to be taken over by the government of Zimbabwe.
SMM was placed under reconstruction in September 2004 and Mr. Afaras Gwaradzimba was appointed as its director and was and is still accountable to the Minister of Justice.
Armed with that presidential decree, together with Edwin Manikai, they crossed the border into Zambia and sold the reconstruction narrative to the Zambian Courts.
On the day the judgment in favour of Gwaradzimba and team was announced by Kajimanga J, a letter was written to TAP Building Products board that it was now under the control of the administrator who the appointed Mr. Manikai, a lawyer who today is representing the President , to the board.
The decision to place TAP Building Products was then rescinded by the Zambian Supreme Court.
This is the basis on which @Tendai Mazenge indicated that TAP has a valid claim which it must pursue.