Connect with us

Corporate Literacy




As part of a project to provoke, ignite and inspire fact-bases active citizenship under the Justice Under Rule Of Law (JUROL) initiative, in this story is Mr Shayne Kundai’s understanding of the SMM story in a conversation with Prof Tichaona Mupasiri on 28 JANUARY 2028.

Mr. Chin’ono is a respected journalist and the exchange in Part 1 of this addition to the SMM narrative adds to the confusion that provoked Mr. Mugore to express openly his wish that Mr. Mawere write a memoir to set the record straight hence the involvement of Mr. Kundai. 

Mr. Chin’ono stated as true and fact that:

“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.”

Based on the above and since 1996, the year in which the video relied upon to assert that Mawere was MNANGAGWA’S FRONT, a respectable journalist whose duty is to inform, educate and entertain the public, clearly premised his conclusion that MAWERE was MNANGAGWA’s surrogate on the unconnected and untested utterances made by MNANGAGWA in a public platform.

Mr. Mpasiri said: “It is this kind of reckless and malicious trophy hunting type of gutter journalism that provoked me to confront Mr. Chin’ono and his response was chilling as set out below:

“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.

HC: 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.

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 self-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.”

The above was unfortunately the end of the chat leaving any reader to question the basis on which a person like Hopewell operates. 

The view that Mnangagwa uses surrogates to allegedly loot public resources is not unique to Hopewell but to many compelling anyone to probe this question deeper than hitherto. 

Mr. Chin’ono was interviewed by the SABC on the subject of the war against corruption in Zimbabawe and he proudly shared the interview on this link with Me. Mpasiri: 

Mr. Frederick Koomson, Director of the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) – Investigative Journalism (IJ) initiative said: “I am shocked if this criminality clothed as craft excellence exists and operates through Hopewell, then I shudder to imagine what is left of this glorious profession commonly described as the 4th State.

In this case, Hopewell maliciously imported a video into a narrative that he wished to peddle that Mnanagwa uses surrogates to prosecute corruption.

I have had a look at this interview and the inescapable conclusion Hopewell’s activism clothed as journalism poses so grave a threat to the rule of law that if nothing is done to hold him to account for not only putting the entire profession into disrepute but for undermining the public confidence in the profession as a guardian of the practitioners’ independence and impartiality.”

Hopewell Chin’ono, Award Winning Journalist & Documentary: 

Mr. Mpasiri, BOAF’s Director of Corporate and Legal Literacy said: “I had a no idea that even after exposing his fraud, Hopewell was blind to what actually had transpired when he sought to unashamedly deny what he had asserted as true and fact that Mawere was in 1996, Mnangagwa’s surrogate, only to deny having said this by accusing me of misunderstanding him.” 

Prof Tichaona Mupasiri (Photo Credit: WhatsApp)

Mr. Kundai them approached Prof Mupasiri, who in a landmark case under Case Number CCZ 34/21 approached the apex court if Zimbabwe seeking President Mnangagwa to account for his state of knowledge and involvement in the facts and circumstances of the reconstruction of SMM using extrajudicial means.

Advocate Jack Matiza, a member of the Friends of SMM (FOSMM), JUROL and BOAF initiatives aimed at promoting, protecting, and upholding the rule of law said: “After watching Hopewell’s interview on SABC that Hopewell had encouraged Mr. Mpasiri to watch and share, i understood why the memoir challenge should be a call to action for anyone who had hope that people like Hopewell could be relied upon to shape the personality and character of an open, accountable, transparent and alternative governance system, his conduct which is inconsistent with s2 of the constitution confirms otherwise.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Corporate Literacy




 [7:57 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: Morning

[8:05 am, 30/01/2023] Shavi: Good morning

[8:09 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: Did you follow my chat with Collets?

[8:12 am, 30/01/2023] Shavi: Yes

[8:12 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: Is it interesting to you?

[8:14 am, 30/01/2023] Shavi: The chat was interesting

[8:15 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: What are the key points that you think are important to you?

[8:17 am, 30/01/2023] Shavi: You do not need the consent of anyone to tell a story whose information is in the public domain

[8:18 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: I thought that she made the point that no story about me should be done without my consent and I should be careful of people trying to use my name.

[8:22 am, 30/01/2023] Shavi: I believe thats too great a limit on freedom of expression. I think if the writer of the story simply wants answers to certain questions he/she can ask you not necessarily that you must consent

[8:24 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: This is what I thought. Like you, did you manage to chat with Deputy Minister Paradza?

[8:26 am, 30/01/2023] Shavi: I dindnt have a chat with him.

[8:28 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: [11/6/2021, 7:29 AM] Shavi: The Fingaz one?

[11/6/2021, 7:29 AM] mdmawere1: Yes

[11/6/2021, 7:30 AM] Shavi: Kindness Paradza

[11/6/2021, 7:30 AM] mdmawere1: Do you know what his role is now?

[11/6/2021, 7:30 AM] Shavi: No

Hon. Kindness Paradza (Photo credit: Zimbabwe Situation)

[11/6/2021, 7:31 AM] mdmawere1: Born Kindness Paradza

Nationality Zimbabwe


Member of Parliament: Nemakonde

Employer Government of Zimbabwe

Organization Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services

Political party Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front

[11/6/2021, 7:32 AM] Shavi: He is now a deputy minister

[11/6/2021, 7:33 AM] mdmawere1: Have you finished your studies?

[11/6/2021, 7:33 AM] Shavi: Yes

[11/6/2021, 7:33 AM] mdmawere1: And now you are a lawyer?

[11/6/2021, 7:46 AM] Shavi: A lawyer yes but not yet a legal practitioner

[11/6/2021, 7:48 AM] mdmawere1: What caused you to share the Fin Gaz article?

[11/6/2021, 7:48 AM] Shavi: Desire to share facts

[11/6/2021, 7:50 AM] mdmawere1: Did anyone ask you for the facts or you were following on social media?

[11/6/2021, 7:50 AM] mdmawere1: Why do you think your father kept the article?

[11/6/2021, 9:06 AM] mdmawere1: https://twitter.com/tazgomo/status/1456880073152372738?t=3uRKij9EvcFNx87OiJgCJQ&s=09

[11/6/2021, 10:46 AM] Shavi: I was following on social media

[11/6/2021, 10:46 AM] Shavi: Probably to preserve history

[11/6/2021, 10:47 AM] mdmawere1: Why not be the change by writing to Paradza and ask him to confirm if he wrote the story and why he did not include the ZANU-PF angle?

[11/6/2021, 10:48 AM] mdmawere1: Why preserve history and not use its facts to build a better society?

[11/6/2021, 10:52 AM] Shavi: Do you have his contacts

[11/6/2021, 10:52 AM] mdmawere1: Do you need help with a draft?

[11/6/2021, 10:53 AM] Shavi: Yes

[11/6/2021, 10:55 AM] Shavi: If its preserved only then can it be used to build

[11/6/2021, 11:05 AM] mdmawere1: Dear Hon Paradza,

My name is Shavirai Mawere, the son of the late Lewis Mawere, the bother of Mr. Mutumwa Mawere.

I have been following the endless debates regarding the facts surrounding the acquisition and financing of SMM.

I have just completed my LL B degree at the University of Zimbabwe.

Although I was not born at the time, the story is fascinating and I was intrigued that a person like Dr. Magaisa, who I look up as a legal scholar would conclude that the acquisition was tainted with corruption.

I followed the heated thread between Mr. Chin’ono and Mr. Mawere on this issue that resulted in the former boldly asserting that at the time of acquisition of SMM, Mr. Mawere was a card carrying member of ZANU-PF.

When I was going through my late father I stumpled upon this informative article that was written by you.

I would like for my interest and perhaps for public interest to confirm the following:

1. Was Mr. Mawere ever a member of ZANU-PF to the best of your knowledge?

2. Was any government guarantee involved in relation to the acquisition of SMM?

3. Was the party, ZANU-PF, involved directly and/or indirectly in the acquisition and financing of the acquisition?

I trust that you will find the above in order and in the national interest to allow us to know better from our history.

I believe that my father kept the original copy so that the next generation like me may know this important story from the people like you who witnessed and wrote about it.


[11/6/2021, 4:42 PM] Shavi: I have spoken with Mr Paradza and he has responded

[8:33 am, 30/01/2023] Shavi: Sorry. Thought you meant recently

[8:34 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: So you did communicate with him?

[8:34 am, 30/01/2023] mdmawere1: Do you think Colleta knows?

Continue Reading


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 [email protected], me, [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected], 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 Ramodibe[email protected]011 269 3106Head: Corporate Affairswww.idc.co.za0829910851Corporate Affairs

—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 04 April 2022 17:17
To: Tinashe Mpasiri <[email protected]>
Cc: Tshepo Ramodibe <[email protected]>; [email protected][email protected][email protected]gmail.com[email protected][email protected]; Media <[email protected]>; Chimwemwe Mwanza <[email protected]>; Tebatso Mokgoro <[email protected]>
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


Mukoma Masimba v Justice Makarau on Fit-4-Purpose re-Zimre Judgment



Please enjoy the Q&A between MM and Justice Makarau.

Q: Why throw a race card in your letter to Lord St Johns of Bletso?
A: The deafening silence of the UK government on the hijack of subsidiaries of two UK registered companies, SMM Holdings Private Limited (ZHL) and THZ Holdings Limited (THZH), is striking.

In the Zimre Holdings Limited (ZHL) matter, the only weapon that was used as the reconstruction act to link the company to Mawere, their target of attack.

THZ Holdings Limited (THZH) had no legal nexus with SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM), the company was alleged to be indebted to the state when in truth and fact this was a total fabrication.

It is interesting that the crafters of the reconstruction decree introduced a self-serving close solely meant to catch all Mawere’s interests in one basket.

The decree introduced the idea of an associate deemed to be any company associated with SMM to be also a target for the hijack.

ZHL’s two shareholders, Endurite Properties Private Limited (Endurite) and UKI Private Limited (UKI) including ZHL itself were all deemed to be under Gwaradzimba’s control.

What is remarkable is that the Minister did not mention by name these entities but left this to the discretion of Gwaradzimba, a non-state actor?

It was Gwaradzimba who exercised discretionary power that fell outside the ambit of the decree.

In terms of the decree, it was only the Minister who could issue a reconstruction order in relation to a company that was purportedly indebted to the state and found by the same Minister to be insolvent.

In this case, no order was issued against ZHL by the Minister and more importantly, Gwaradzimba had no title to issue any limiting order to any company.

As a consequence of the Makarau JCC judgment, ZHL’s control and management were changed and THZH’s links with the company were terminated in court.

I shudder to think what would have been the case if the shareholder of THZH and SMMH were white persons or white-controlled entities.

Would the attitude of the UK government have been the same?

Clearly not. When people say BLACK RIGHTS DON’T MATTER at all in the UK, it is not a joke.

I should like to believe that the only plausible explanation why the British embassy is silent is because of the race issue.

Q: Do you think that Makarau JCC understood the constitutional issues inherent in her judgment?

A: On one hand, I am tempted to believe that she didn’t and probably thought that what was at play was a case of some judicial management in which an Administrator assumed the powers of a judicial manager.

On the other hand, I think she had constructive knowledge of what was at play and she must have known that she had no title to recognize the authority of an Administrator that was appointed outside the perimeter of legality.

No judge has the discretion to confer rights that the constitution prohibits.

The right to control and direct a company is a constitutional one and Makarau JCC’s recognition of Gwaradzimba’s order went beyond what any judge is permitted to do.

In addition, Makarau JCC knew that the intended corporate action involved the discretion of shareholders of ZHL and as such, she had no title to authorize the substitution of shareholders who should have participated and voted at ZHL’s extraordinary general meeting.

The protection of property rights that is enshrined and entrenched in the constitution was undermined and betrayed by Makarau JCC and she got away with this.

Q: What is your take on President Mnangagwa’s reliance on fatally defective judgments like that of Makarau JCC to assert that the reconstruction affair in relation to SMM was properly implemented?
A: I can understand President Mnangagwa’s position only if he was involved in the project to divest Mawere of his assets using public power.

No independent and accountable President would not act against dangerous judges like Makarau JCC unless he has vested interests in the outcome.

I have been following closely President Mnangagwa’s attitude on Mupasiri’s impeachment application and there is no doubt that he is implicated and fully associates himself with judgments that were sought and granted outside the boundaries of constitutionality.

Continue Reading