President Ramaphosa found wanting on his oath test regarding the constitutionality of the recognition and enforcement of Mnangagwa’s law in SA

In a dramatic development, Mnangagwa under oath stated that his oath must be tested against his oath, yet s2 of the constitution of Zimbabwe is binding on all persons to uphold, defend, respect and obey the constitution as the supreme law of the country and any law, conduct, practice, and custom that is inconsistent with the constitution is void and invalid to the extebt of the inconsistency, Ms Janice Greaver, a member of the Friends of SMM and a citizen of South Africa, believing that President Ramaphosa who in terms of s2 of the SA constitution has an equal duty to her tv promote, protect and uphold the SA constitution as the supreme law, approached the High Court after letters were written to Ramaphisa informing him that contrary to international law and the SA constitution, a decree whose effect is to divest and deprive of rights and freedoms in relation to property was recognized and enforced in SA by the courts, he refused, neglected and failed to respond only to be compelled to outsource his deposition to court to an official in his department.

Mr Jim Howell, a member of the Direct Democracy initiative said: “I was not aware that a Zimbabwean decree was applied in South Africa and a company whose control and management was divested by force of public power’s authority to litigate was automatically recognized and enforced in SA creating a precedent for rogue states to unlawfully assume the control and management of companies and use the stolen authority as bona fide authority in South Africa.

I have had the benefit of extra information confirming that judgments were sought and granted in South Africa in favour of the stolen company whose control was duveeted.

It is not in dispute that an extrajudicial decree was issued by the Minister of Justice and a close buddy of Mnangagwa who played a key role in ousting the late Mugabe from office outside the four corners of legality, on 6 September 2004.

Chinamasa appointed a certain Mr. Afaras Gwaradzimba, a former war veteran of the Zimbabwean liberation struggle and a practicing CA, to assume the control and management of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM).

It is chilling that a professional CA would accept to undermine the ethics and professionalism of his craft to accept a poisoned chalice to be party to conduct that is inimical to the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law that is based on the doctrines of the separation of powers and equality, being fundamental tenets of the rule of law.

I was shocked to learn that Mnangagwa in judicial proceedings would assert the constitutional validity of a self-help scheme being prosecuted using public power.

What I have founded even more bizarre is that to date prestigious law firms like ENS INC. and DLA PIPER SOUTH AFRICA (RF) INC. who who accepted agency based on power of attorneys signed by Mr. Gwaradzimba who in terms of the decree was appointed ecteajudicially unlike a liquidator whose appointment is pursuant to judicial proceedings and involvement owes a duty to the Appointing Authority, an executive of the government of Zimbabwe, and as such lacks title to act as any lawful and bona fide of a captured company.

The reliance of the authority to act on any right, power and legal relationship derived from a law that is inconsistent with the constitution of SA clearly places these law firms as accomplices of the foreign government who through the operation of a decree effectively placed SMM outside the ambit of the operation of the Companies Act a law of general application.

It is self-evident that the authority to represent this organ of state was contested in SA proceedings in terms of its legal validity given that the control of a company is vested in its directors who owe a fiduciary duty to it and are held personally liable for their conduct.

The effect of the decree was to divest SMM’s directors who were dismissed by Mr Gwaradzimba using the decree was a weapon of the control of the company and substituting him as the controller.

Clearly, no law firm would accept agency to act on behalf of a hostage company especially when all persons in SA have a right and duty to protect the supremacy of the SA constitution and the acceptance of authority to act on behalf of a foreign creature of state disguised as a normal company constitutes conduct that is inconsistent with the doctrine of sovereignty and legality.

SA laws only apply to the affairs in the jurisdiction and accepting agency based on a foreign draconian law and extrajudicial conduct would place any person including attorneys who are oath taking in a direct conflict with the supremacy of the SA constitution.

The supremacy of the constitution promise would make all the judgments including the decisions and actions related to the prosecution of a right and authority stolen from their rightful owners using state power void, illegal and of no force and effect.

If there was a classic case of the invasion of the SA territorial space and sovereignty by a foreign state clothed as a company, this is one.

I am shocked that armed with this evidence supported by extant judgments that President Ramaphosa would not deem it fit to protect the SA jurisdiction from this precedent by using his diplomatic weapon to distance himself from Mnangagwa’s reprehensible conduct that has justified the Western countries to refuse to remove sanctions against a regime that has the audacity of washing its dirty linen openly inside the courts of South Africa.

Mnangagwa has on several occasions praised SA and its courts of assailing and enforcing Zimbabwe’s draconian laws by actually rewarding them with judgments against his political enemies.

I had no idea of what was at play and I am extremely that this case study will help expose the critical importance of civics literacy in raising awareness that the right to vote can best be protected by the duty to protect it.

The President took an oath to protect the constitution yet it is worrying in this case that he chose to side with Mnangagwa by electing to ignore his duty to the constitution.

The constitution that we all serve has no mind of its own and like a company it is human directors who have a duty to act in its name and when directors intentionally and knowingly act against the supremacy of the constitution, then their fitness to hold office can legitimately be called to question.”