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.” 

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.”

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 Ramodibe	Mon, 4 Apr, 17:47 (20 hours ago)
to [email protected], me, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Media, Chimwemwe, Tebatso

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.