WILL RAMAPHOSA FINALLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR JUDICIAL CAPTURE CONDUCT? A MUST READ:

Unveiling the Ramaphosa and Mnangagwa Case and Citizen Advocacy

In the intricate dance of law and justice, the role of lawyers and judges is paramount. They are entrusted with upholding the rule of law, ensuring fair hearings, and safeguarding constitutional principles. However, what happens when this trust is breached, and the very foundations of legality are shaken? Such questions come to light in the case of Hilton Epstein SC and the proceedings surrounding Case Number 2005-2252, where the rule of law appears to have been undermined.

At the heart of this case is the company, SMM Holdings Private Limited and its legal status. Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, a member of the initiative under BOAF-10KPOL, raises fundamental concerns about the conduct of Epstein AJ and the validity of the judgment rendered. Mupasiri, through public statements and legal filings, has actively highlighted the discrepancies and potential breaches of constitutional principles in the handling of the SMM case.

The core issue revolves around the legal personality of SMM, which, according to an affidavit, ceased to exist on September 6, 2004, under a decree by then-President Mnangagwa. The judgment delivered by Epstein AJ, favoring SMM as a legal entity, seemingly disregards this crucial fact. This raises significant constitutional questions regarding the supremacy of the Constitution, as enshrined in Section 2, and the validity of laws or conduct inconsistent with it.

Moreover, the case highlights broader issues of fair hearings and representation. In a related matter under Case Number 2023-123899, Presiding Judge Pearse AJ recognized SMM’s authority to litigate without affording Mr. Mawere, a concerned party, the opportunity to challenge the validity and legality of SMM’s legal status. This lack of due process raises concerns about transparency and fairness within the judicial system.

The implications of these developments extend beyond legal technicalities. They strike at the core of accountability, transparency, and citizen participation in shaping legal outcomes. Mupasiri’s engagement underscores a shift towards active citizenship, where ordinary citizens are not passive observers but active shapers of legal and constitutional discourse.

The project under BOAF-10KPOL, featuring Mr. Mupasiri as one of 10,000 Points of Light, exemplifies this ethos. It seeks to build an inclusive, forward-leaning, and problem-solving personality and character within society. Central to this vision is the empowerment of ordinary citizens to engage critically with legal and constitutional matters, challenging the status quo and advocating for justice and fairness.

In essence, the case of Hilton Epstein SC and the scrutiny it faces serve as a reminder of the delicate balance required in legal proceedings. It calls for a renewed commitment to upholding constitutional supremacy, ensuring due process, and fostering active citizen participation.

As we navigate the complexities of law and justice, citizens can play a pivotal role by researching legal issues, contacting representatives, attending public forums, and advocating for transparency and fairness within the judicial system. Together, we can uphold the pillars of justice and ensure that the rule of law remains steadfast in the face of challenges.

PART 1 – THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY USING QUESTIONABLE CHARACTERS LIKE HILTON EPSTEIN SC – THE BOAF LAW EXPOSE IN FULL – PART 1 – JURISDICTIONAL AND CONDUCT ISSUES –

The Role of Lawyers in undermining the rule of law – The Case of Hilton Epstein SC who presided over the liquidation proceedings in the matter under Case Number 2005-2252 in which he fraudulently ruled as follows:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,

SMM HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED 

and

SOUTHERN ASBESTOS SALES (PTY) LTD    Respondent

J U D G M E NT

EPSTEIN AJ

This is an application for the final winding up of the Respondent. In the alternative the Applicant seeks a provisional winding up order. It is the Applicant’s case that the Respondent is indebted to it in the amounts of USD $18 464 595.27, CAD $628 071.84 and R4 515 367.48. The Applicant contends that the Respondent is unable to pay its debts as envisaged in section 345 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973.

The Applicant. which will henceforth be referred to as “SMM”, is a private company incorporated in terms of the company laws of the Republic of Zimbabwe. It has its principal place of business in Harare, Zimbabwe. SMM is a mining concern which approximately 95% of the asbestos which SMM produces is exported.”

In 2003, a member-based not-for-profit organization was established in terms of the laws of South Africa to promote, provoke, inspire and ignite the shaping of a forward-leaning and problem-solving personality and character of Africa using South Africa as the largest African economy as a reference to shape and define the this elusive character and personality given the nexus between the absence of rule of law and the triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment contrary to the allegations that colonialism, imperialism and capitalism are the principal drives of the African condition.

It is not in dispute that pervasive illiteracy in Africa could very well be the shaper of the cotemporary African backward leaning and finger pointing African personality and character.

In the quest to deliver the provoke active citizenship in Africa in line with the agenda 2063, a project under theme BANKING ON AFRICA’S FUTURE (BOAF) was given birth it with the aim of using case studies to provoke the shifting of perspectives and paradigms.

The validity and legality of this judgment inform this Literacy 101 on corporate, legal, and constitutional literacy questions and issues.

The first issue is whether Epstein AJ in terms of s. 2 of the Constitution which provides for the supremacy of the constitution and that any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid ab initio. This constitutional provision precludes anyone from recognizing and enforcing rights and claims founded on a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution of South Africa,

In this matter, there is no dispute that the Applicant Creditor in the affairs of the Respondent was cited as a normal legal person enjoying rights and claims reserved for a legal person leading to the question of the legal status of this litigant.

This question was answered by Epstein as follows:

“The Applicant. which will henceforth be referred to as “SMM”, is a private company incorporated in terms of the company laws of the Republic of Zimbabwe. It has its principal place of business in Harare, Zimbabwe. SMM is a mining concern which approximately 95% of the asbestos which SMM produces is exported.”

It is trite that court orders are binding on parties. Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, a member of AHS and Director of Public Policy for an initiative under BOAF-10KPOL that was established to focus on constitutional issues including the conduct of the supply value chain actors of judges, lawyers, and other actors in relation to validity and legality of their conduct motivated primarily on the facts and circumstances of the birth and prosecution of state capture questions and issues, albeit targeted at former President’s conduct in relation the affairs of the Gupta family.

In relation to audience that was granted by Epstein to SMM as the claimant, it is important to recognize that was placed before the Court in the pleadings was that the control and direction of this litigant was vested in an appointee of the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs pursuant to a decree promulgated by the then President Mnangagwa using Presidential Power, Temporary Measures, reserved for the President to use in state of emergencies without parliamentary involvement.

This fact has not changed since September 6, 2004 as confirmed in an affidavit deposed to on behalf of the September 6, 2004 affairs of SMM Holdings Private Limited, SMM, a company that was duly incorporated in terms of the Companies Act of Zimbabwe that like all laws of general application provided for the control and direction of legal or juristic entities in shareholder-appointed directors of the company, as set out hereunder:

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 supplementary affidavit on behalf of the Second Respondent.  The Second Respondent is a company under reconstruction pursuant to a reconstruction order and decree dated 6 September 2004 and promulgated under General Notice 45A of 2004, which is attached hereto as annexure “SA1”.

3.            DMH are the Zimbabwean attorneys of record of SMM and in that role, they have been involved in the affairs of SMM, since 2004 including in various litigation in South Africa. I have been involved in the various litigation since about 2007.

Notwithstanding the fact that a firm of attorneys cannot self-help or self-instruct, in the matter under Case Number 2023-123899, the Presiding Judge Pearse AJ, recognized and enforced the authority to litigate in the name of SMM as a legal person when the effect of the reconstruction issued not by the Court but by Chinamasa whose relationship with the affairs of the affairs of SMM as a legal person regulated in terms of the Companies Act and whose control and direction was vested in its shareholder-appointed directors, the Presiding Judge on April 11, 2024 refused, failed, and neglected with the knowledge and involvement of his appointing authority, the Deputy Judge President, his Lordship Mr. Sutherland and the Acting Judge President, Windell AJDP, who chillingly and astonishingly extended a rule nisi order granted to SMM as an organ or weapon of Mnangagwa to punish his enemies for ulterior financial and political purposes, without affording Mawere an opportunity to make representations in relation to the validity and legality of recognizing and enforcing granted  by Pearse AJ to a legal nullity or a legality lacking legal personhood.

The full Epstein judgment can be found on this link: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/3091d03633.html.

Based on the above, can you read the letter below addressed to the DJP as part of the project under the Friends of Shabanie and Mashava Mines Trust, a trust that is registered and operating in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe to determine based on common sense, logic, and reason as well as s. 2 of the Constitution whether the conduct of Epstein SC was consistent with the constitution of South Africa in hearing and granting an order in favour of SMM whose legal personality as a legal person ceased to exist on September 6, 2004, pursuant to the Mnangagwa Law that he authored and prosecuted against Mawere without the knowledge and involvement of the late President Mugabe.