Connect with us


PRESIDENT MNANGAGWA’S DIRTY TRICKS EXPOSED ONCE AGAIN: Legal Transparency Advocacy: JLI-AI AFRICA INSTITUTE Spotlights Concerns Surrounding SAS Liquidation Judgment

Caroline Du Plessis




London, United Kingdom – In a commitment to fostering transparency and justice, JLI-AI AFRICA INSTITUTE issues a press release illuminating the direct role of President Mnangagwa in applying his law, practices, custom, or conduct in violation of s. 1 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which reads that Zimbabwe, like South Africa, is a republic and that it is like all nation-states, a unitary, democratic, and sovereign republic, as read with s. 2(1), which provides for the supremacy of the constitution, and that any law, practice, custom, or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

Mr. Peter Smith, a member of JUROL CANADA, stated that: “It is important, as part of shaping and defining the personality and character of the Africa that must be desirable, that the critical importance of active citizenry in protecting and promoting compliance with the Bill of Rights as a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom.

In this case, I am encouraged that, as a Friend of Shabanie and Mashaba Mines (FOSMM), I have learned that citizenship is not costless, for it imposes obligations to match the rights conferred by the constitution, and s. 2(2) is instructive and prescriptive as follows:

“The obligations imposed by this Constitution are binding on every person, natural or juristic, including the state and all executive, legislative, and judicial institutions and agencies of government at every level, and must be fulfilled by them.”

Dr. Daniel Kuzozvirava Shumba, President of the JLI-AI AFRICA INSTITUTE stated: “I have learned that if nothing is done, it remains undone, hence my decision to take a step forward by approaching the High Court of South Africa under Case Number 2023-133335 to compel the Master of the High Court to comply with the obligations imposed by s. 2 of the Constitution of South Africa that, like s. 2(1), of the Constitution provides that the constitution is the supreme law and any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid from the beginning to the extent of its inconsistency meaning that the voidness is not asserted but is inherent in the law or conduct.

It was chilling that my application was opposed by a litigant that was cited by its South African attorneys, DLA-Piper South Africa (RF) Inc., represented by Ms. Kirsty Simpson, a partner at the firm, and an affidavit in support of the intervention was deposed to by Ms. Ruvimbo Matambo, who asserted as follows:


l, the undersigned,

RUMBIDZAI MATAMBO do hereby make oath and state that:

  1. I am a major female practicing attorney and partner practicing under the name and style of “Dube Manikai Hwacha Attorneys” (DMH) at its principal place of business situated at DMH House, 4 Fleetwood Road, Alexandra Park, Harare.
  2. I depose to this answering affidavit on behalf of the Intervening Party, SMM Holdings (Private) Limited (SMM). SMM is a company under reconstruction pursuant to a reconstruction order and decree dated September 6, 2004, and promulgated under General Notice 45A of 2004, which is attached hereto as annexure “AAI.”. This fact has been accepted on numerous occasions by the South African courts.
  3. DMH are the Zimbabwean attorneys of record for SMM, and in that role, they have been involved in the affairs of SMM since 2004, including in various litigations in South Africa. I have been involved in various litigations since about 2007.
  4. SMM has authorized its attorneys of record to oppose this application, as appears from the special power of attorney attached hereto as annexure “AA2.”

The matter was heard notwithstanding the fact that I as a layperson had challenged the legal personhood of SMM to litigate in the name of a SMM cited as a company, when the effect of the Mnangagwa law or the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act and its predecessor decree referred to by Ms. Matambo, the affairs of SMM was by force of this draconian law removed from the ambit of the Companies Act of Zimbabwe making SMM henceforth or from September 6, 2004, an organ of state and this lacking legal capacity to assert any rights and claims founded on a law that is contrary to public policy in that it is premised on penal, revenue and confiscatory motives and practices, inconsistent with s. 2 of the Constitution of South Africa that void any conduct or law that is inconsistent with the constitution and thus precluding the title and jurisdiction of any court of law to recognize and enforce any rights and claims founded on it; contrary to public policy, and ultra vires international law.

Notwithstanding Ms. Simpson and her principals, including President Mnangagwa’s, the alter ego of a creature called SMM UNDER RECONSTRUCTION OR HIS ABSOLUTE CONTROL, determined attempt to deny justice, because of the use of public power to undermine the rule of law, the reconstruction as a coup should have been nipped in the bud as an orchestrated criminal and corrupt enterprise.

I was shocked to hear the legal representatives of this litigant assert boldly and audaciously in trial proceedings that their purported client and litigant in the name of SMM was a legal person when President Mnangagwa asserted in his pleadings in opposition to Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri in the matter under Case Number CCZ 34/21 in which he sought to hold President Mnangagwa to account for his knowledge and involvement in divesting and depriving the shareholders of all companies deemed to be under the control of Mr. Mawere who since July 2002, was a South African citizen, albeit of Zimbabwean descend, but the version fraudulently misrepresented to a court regarding the legal status of SMM is contradicted in the following except this affidavit:

“Ad paragraph 107-123

71. The views held by Gwaradzimba on the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act are informed by extant judgments of the apex court. Those views are shared by my government and can only be revised if a pronouncement to the contrary is issued by this court.

72. The facts relating to SMM are known to me. They are contained in the court records. I am briefed on them. The fact that Mawere has lost his case in court is also known to me. It is a matter of public record. Besides, I am fully briefed on it.”

It cannot be disputed that President Mnangagwa’s Chief Legal Advisor in his capacity as President is the de facto Attorney General or Mr. Edwin Manikai whose omnipresent role on the affairs of post-September 6, 2004 affairs of SMM as a company under the control of President Mnangagwa’s agents, is the central actor in all the litigations in South Africa including the matters under Case Numbers 2023-133335 and 2023-134582 in which judgments were shockingly granted against me and in favour of SMM as a bona fide legal person.

It was my argument that all the judgments sought and granted in favor of the post-September 6, 2004, rights and claims acquired pursuant to the reconstruction legislative framework must be subjected to s. 172(1)(a) scrutiny, including the SAS liquidation judgment granted on June 14, 2005, by Epstein AJ, as he was known then.

Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, the Director of the JLI-AI Africa INSTITUTE stated: “I believe, as a member of the JUSTICE UNDER RULE OF LAW (JUROL), that no one should be above the law, including the Presidents of Zimbabwe and South Africa, whose positions on the rule of law seem to be the same.

In this matter, I chose to use Case Number 2023-133335 in which I was cited as a Respondent to seek several declaratory orders from the Court in line with the provisions of s. 2, s. 8(1), s. 8(2), s. 9(1), s. 32, s. 34, s. 165, s. 172(1)(a), s. 172(1)(b), and s. 173 of the Constitution of South Africa which President Mnangagwa seeks to thwart and undermine the use of the South African judiciary system.

The key and obvious concerns inherent in this matter include:

Key concerns raised:

  1. Authority to Litigate: This press release underscores the importance of litigants providing proper authority, citing Rule 7(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Notably, concerns are raised regarding the absence of furnished authority for Ms. Matambo, prompting questions about the legitimacy of her representation.
  2. Validity of the SAS Liquidation Judgment: The release questions the judgment’s validity, asserting it relied on foreign laws inconsistent with the South African Constitution. Specific issues highlighted include the use of reconstruction legislation and the authority derived from the administrator of SMM.
  3. Jurisdiction of South African Courts: Emphasizing that South African courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims founded on laws inconsistent with the Constitution, the release raises concerns about the SAS judgment being utilized as a basis for asserting rights against South African debtors.
  4. Allegations of Fraud and Lack of Due Process: The press release alleges fraudulent conduct in the proceedings, pointing to a lack of due process and adherence to constitutional principles. Specific issues include the conduct of South African attorneys and the potential impact on the rule of law.

Call for Active Citizenship: JLI-AI AFRICA INSTITUTE, in the release, underscores the urgency of the matter and issues a call to action for active citizenship. “This case is not just about legal intricacies; it’s a call to every citizen to actively engage in upholding justice and transparency,” states the release.”

Ms. Mona Jama Barre, a Canadian citizen of Somalian descent and a member of JUROL CANADA, stated: “Although I am now a citizen and resident of Toronto, Canada, this matter of the systemic abuse of public power by the president of an African country reminds me of my country of birth. This press release affirms that evidence exists and will be presented during court proceedings to substantiate the legitimate, valid, and lawful constitutional and ethical concerns raised. Additionally, it calls on not only resident African citizens and persons to be vigilant, but also, like my brothers Dr. Shumba and Mr. Mupasiri, to participate actively in the legal process even without legal representation.

Contact Information: For further information or media inquiries, please contact: Ms. Caroline Du Plessis, JUROL LONDON’S MEDIA EXCELLENCE TEAM, JLI-AI AFRICA INSTITUTE, +447305032396 and carolineduplessis@iniafrica.com.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Warning: Undefined variable $user_ID in /home/iniafrica/public_html/wp-content/themes/zox-news/comments.php on line 49

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply