COCA COLA’s SOUTH AFRICA SUBSIDIARY, ATTACKS THE RULE OF LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA OVER ITS COMPLICITY IN EXPROPRIATING ASSETS IN ZIMBABWE

“Does a cause not exist for celebrating the fact that this landmark dispute with far reaching consequences is now before a court outside the territory of Zimbabwe.

Having tested the apex court in Zimbabwe in a bid to hold President Mnangagwa to account for his involvement in relation to the use of public power to divest Africa Resources Limited (ARL) of the control and management of FLAM, SMM, SZL, among many other juristic entities employing about 20,000 people, I am extremely encouraged that this dispute is being ventilated in SA, a country whose President is convinced that removing targeted sanctions against Zimbabwean persons will help reduce the Zimbabwean migration to SA.

This application will no doubt expose the hypocrisy of the First Respondent, Prrsident Ramaphosa, whose citizens were robbed by CCSA, a company that openly and brazenly paid $2.7 million as a bribe to escape the consequences of the application of a law that does not pass any constitutional muster.

My application under Case Number CCZ 34/2021 was opposed by President Mnangagwa, notwithstanding the fact the applicant was unable to effect service on him.

An application that was never served should have attracted a different response from an independent and impartial court process but alas the Constitutional Court proceeded to determine the application by dismissing this application with costs.

My experiences dealing with this matter whose purpose was for the apex court to determine the constitutional legality and validity of President Mnangagwa’s admitted involvement in the SMM matters including the alleged expropriation of private property using the draconian Reconstruction Law in relation to the right, title and interest of SA citizens.

It is true and fact, that following the placement of SMM under the control and management of an Administrator, a creature of a law that offends the doctrines of equality and separation of powers, CCSA without the involvement of any independent and impartial tribunal, benefited from proceeds of extortion, fraud and bribery of $2.7 million.

It is chilling that CCSA, in violation with the SA constitution would oppose an action that seeks accountability based on the truth in order to ensure that this precedent is one too many.

It is not in dispute that the purported cancellation of the upgrade and location of SZL was a consequence of the use of a repugnant law whose effect was known to CCSA yet this company, a member of the Coca Cola Company (TCCC), would have the audacity to seek to conceal the true facts in this unconscionable conduct.

When properly construed CCSA paid $2.7 million for a government gazette to cancel a nullit,” said Mr. Tichaona Mipasiri, the 14th Respondent in an application launched by Mr. Mawere as the First Respondent and SMM’s shareholder whose right to appoint and dismiss its directors was divested by the reconstruction order issued by Chinamasa, Mnangagwa’s key ally in the coup that saw Mugabe being unconstitutionally unseated.

It is striking that the people involved in the SZL coup were the same characters involved in the Mugabe coup.

I have already taken steps to expose the corruption inherent in the purported reconstruction of SZL and others.

My position as an active African person has lately been fortifeid by the Al Jazeera expose that has identified the involvement of President Mnangagwa as a key player in the saga.

In response to my application, President Mnangagwa like CCSA, opposed, boldly asserted and admitted that he was the driving force behind the appropriation of SMM and related companies’ using the reconstruction self-help laws.

This alone would conform that his knowledge regarding the affairs of SMM as a company could only arise because SMM ceased to fall under the ambit of the Companies Act of Zimbabwe but under the control of the government of Zimbabwe since 6 September 2004.

It follows that the letter to purportedly terminate the localization and upgrade on 13 September 2004 fell with the ambit of the extrajudicial divestment of ARL’s assets implying a causal nexus between the termination decision and the prior divestment of the control and management by the applicants in the SA matter.

It instructive that absent the reconstruction of SMM, the purported reconstruction could have been a nullity.

The chilling part of this shocking and alarming is that CCSA has openly sought to distance itself from any dealings with Gwaradzimba and Chinamasa when it is common cause that in terms of the Zimbabwean reconstruction legislation, Gwaradzimba in his capacity occupies an administrative position rather than a fiduciary position in relation to the entity he is appointed to administer and as such, he lacks title and jurisdiction to act independently of the Appointing Authority, said Mr. Mupasiri.

Mr. Define Mafa, a founder of the Zimbabwe Economic Movement (ZEM) and also a member of the BOAF-JUROL initiative to raise awareness on the rights and duties of citizens said:

“I am intrigued that a subsidiary of TCCC, a company that is subject to the US sanctions against sanction would brazenly and audatiously act in the manner it has in relation to judicial proceedings in SA.

It has decided to interpose itself in a matter in which no relief is sought against it simply to protect its unjustified gain to the prejudice of SA citizens.

The First Applicant, the sole shareholder of ARL, and also the sole ultimate shareholder of Peter Trading Pty Limited, in liquidation), is a naturalized SA citizen.

It is not in dispute that the dispute involves the bill of rights pertaining to SA natural and juristic persons and as such President Ramaphosa has a duty to step forward to the plate as prescribed in terms of s83(b) of the Constitution lest his conduct will have to be subjected to the impeachment clause.

When juxtaposed against the promise of the Constitution, CCSA’s decision to oppose an application of this nature, clearly goes against the principles of justice?

A person like me living in the USA is genuinely provoked to ask: What is the application seeking to achieve?

In my books, it is the President’s duty to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic.

The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom for all.

Therefore, it is the state’s duty to protect and fulfill these rights. CCSA, a juristic entity operating under the Companies Act, a subordinate law to the Constitution, opposes an application to compel the head of the executive branch of government.

However, CCSA, like the President, is bound by the Constitution and is required to assist the court in ensuring that all relevant facts are presented in the interest of justice. CCSA’s conduct, including opposing the application, falls within the ambit of section 2 of the SA Constitution, which requires all respondents to assist the court in the delivery of justice.

It is my understanding from the facts that the President, who has the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, has failed to do so, which may lead to his impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution.

The BOAF-JUROL initiative is concerned about TCCC’s involvement in a case involving the prosecution of a barbaric and satanic law, aimed at divesting and depriving shareholders and directors of a Zimbabwean company, Schweppes Zimbabwe Limited (SZL), in exchange for a $2.7 million bribe paid to Mnangagwa and his cabal. CCSA has admitted to paying the bribe but has presented conflicting versions regarding the extortion that resulted in Chinamasa canceling a non-existing reconstruction order via a government gazette, violating section 25(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property.

As a member of JUROL, and in line with section 2 of the SA Constitution, I have a duty to ensure that CCSA is held accountable for its conduct, which may have resulted in the payment of $2.7 million to a government under US sanctions in a clandestine and opaque manner.

Additionally, I am concerned that the government of Zimbabwe is applying its repugnant laws outside its borders, violating international law, the SADC Treaty and Protocol, and the principles of justice.”explain why Coca Cola is not part of this group?

Additionally, is it not a cause for celebration that CCSA, a subsidiary of TCCC, has taken a stand opposing an application that clearly goes against the principles of justice? What is the application seeking to achieve? It is the President’s duty to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic.

The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom for all.

Therefore, it is the state’s duty to protect and fulfill these rights. CCSA, a juristic entity operating under the Companies Act, a subordinate law to the Constitution, opposes an application to compel the head of the executive branch of government.

However, CCSA, like the President, is bound by the Constitution and is required to assist the court in ensuring that all relevant facts are presented in the interest of justice. CCSA’s conduct, including opposing the application, falls within the ambit of section 2 of the SA Constitution, which requires all respondents to assist the court in the delivery of justice.

The President, who has the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, has failed to do so, which may lead to his impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution.

The BOAF-JUROL initiative is concerned about TCCC’s involvement in a case involving the prosecution of a barbaric and satanic law, aimed at divesting and depriving shareholders and directors of a Zimbabwean company, Schweppes Zimbabwe Limited (SZL), in exchange for a $2.7 million bribe paid to Mnangagwa and his cabal.

CCSA has admitted to paying the bribe but has presented conflicting versions regarding the extortion that resulted in Chinamasa canceling a non-existing reconstruction order via a government gazette, violating section 25(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. As a member of JUROL, and in line with section 2 of the SA Constitution, I have a duty to ensure that CCSA is held accountable for its conduct, which may have resulted in the payment of $2.7 million to a government under US sanctions in a clandestine and opaque manner.

Additionally, I am concerned that the government of Zimbabwe is applying its repugnant laws outside its borders, violating international law, the SADC Treaty and Protocol, and the principles of justice “

“””””explain why Coca Cola is not part of this group? Additionally, is it not a cause for celebration that CCSA, a subsidiary of TCCC, has taken a stand opposing an application that clearly goes against the principles of justice? What is the application seeking to achieve? It is the President’s duty to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic. The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom for all. Therefore, it is the state’s duty to protect and fulfill these rights. CCSA, a juristic entity operating under the Companies Act, a subordinate law to the Constitution, opposes an application to compel the head of the executive branch of government. However, CCSA, like the President, is bound by the Constitution and is required to assist the court in ensuring that all relevant facts are presented in the interest of justice. CCSA’s conduct, including opposing the application, falls within the ambit of section 2 of the SA Constitution, which requires all respondents to assist the court in the delivery of justice. The President, who has the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, has failed to do so, which may lead to his impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution. The BOAF-JUROL initiative is concerned about TCCC’s involvement in a case involving the prosecution of a barbaric and satanic law, aimed at divesting and depriving shareholders and directors of a Zimbabwean company, Schweppes Zimbabwe Limited (SZL), in exchange for a $2.7 million bribe paid to Mnangagwa and his cabal. CCSA has admitted to paying the bribe but has presented conflicting versions regarding the extortion that resulted in Chinamasa canceling a non-existing reconstruction order via a government gazette, violating section 25(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. As a member of JUROL, and in line with section 2 of the SA Constitution, I have a duty to ensure that CCSA is held accountable for its conduct, which may have resulted in the payment of $2.7 million to a government under US sanctions in a clandestine and opaque manner. Additionally, I am concerned that the government of Zimbabwe is applying its repugnant laws outside its borders, violating international law, the SADC Treaty and Protocol, and the principles of justice.”explain why Coca Cola is not part of this group? Additionally, is it not a cause for celebration that CCSA, a subsidiary of TCCC, has taken a stand opposing an application that clearly goes against the principles of justice? What is the application seeking to achieve? It is the President’s duty to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic. The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom for all. Therefore, it is the state’s duty to protect and fulfill these rights. CCSA, a juristic entity operating under the Companies Act, a subordinate law to the Constitution, opposes an application to compel the head of the executive branch of government. However, CCSA, like the President, is bound by the Constitution and is required to assist the court in ensuring that all relevant facts are presented in the interest of justice. CCSA’s conduct, including opposing the application, falls within the ambit of section 2 of the SA Constitution, which requires all respondents to assist the court in the delivery of justice. The President, who has the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, has failed to do so, which may lead to his impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution. The BOAF-JUROL initiative is concerned about TCCC’s involvement in a case involving the prosecution of a barbaric and satanic law, aimed at divesting and depriving shareholders and directors of a Zimbabwean company, Schweppes Zimbabwe Limited (SZL), in exchange for a $2.7 million bribe paid to Mnangagwa and his cabal. CCSA has admitted to paying the bribe but has presented conflicting versions regarding the extortion that resulted in Chinamasa canceling a non-existing reconstruction order via a government gazette, violating section 25(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. As a member of JUROL, and in line with section 2 of the SA Constitution, I have a duty to ensure that CCSA is held accountable for its conduct, which may have resulted in the payment of $2.7 million to a government under US sanctions in a clandestine and opaque manner. Additionally, I am concerned that the government of Zimbabwe is applying its repugnant laws outside its borders, violating international law, the SADC Treaty and Protocol, and the principles of justice.

Can you explain why Coca Cola is not part of this group? Additionally, is it not a cause for celebration that CCSA, a subsidiary of TCCC, has taken a stand opposing an application that clearly goes against the principles of justice? What is the application seeking to achieve? It is the President’s duty to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic. The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom for all. Therefore, it is the state’s duty to protect and fulfill these rights. CCSA, a juristic entity operating under the Companies Act, a subordinate law to the Constitution, opposes an application to compel the head of the executive branch of government. However, CCSA, like the President, is bound by the Constitution and is required to assist the court in ensuring that all relevant facts are presented in the interest of justice. CCSA’s conduct, including opposing the application, falls within the ambit of section 2 of the SA Constitution, which requires all respondents to assist the court in the delivery of justice. The President, who has the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, has failed to do so, which may lead to his impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution. The BOAF-JUROL initiative is concerned about TCCC’s involvement in a case involving the prosecution of a barbaric and satanic law, aimed at divesting and depriving shareholders and directors of a Zimbabwean company, Schweppes Zimbabwe Limited (SZL), in exchange for a $2.7 million bribe paid to Mnangagwa and his cabal. CCSA has admitted to paying the bribe but has presented conflicting versions regarding the extortion that resulted in Chinamasa canceling a non-existing reconstruction order via a government gazette, violating section 25(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. As a member of JUROL, and in line with section 2 of the SA Constitution, I have a duty to ensure that CCSA is held accountable for its conduct, which may have resulted in the payment of $2.7 million to a government under US sanctions in a clandestine and opaque manner. Additionally, I am concerned that the government of Zimbabwe is applying its repugnant laws outside its borders, violating international law, the SADC Treaty and Protocol, and the principles of justice.