Michael Mundashi’s MMLP, a Threat to the Rule of Law in Zambia

Introduction:

In the realm of legal ethics and accountability, the recent saga involving Michael Mundashi, a partner at Mulenga Mundashi Legal Partners (MMLP) in Zambia, has sparked fervent debate.

This article plunges into the complex and contentious legal dispute that has brought Mundashi and MMLP under the spotlight, shedding light on the ethical standards within the legal community and raising critical questions about accountability.

The Controversial Legal Dispute:

At the core of this intricate legal narrative lies a long-standing dispute regarding the validity and legality of the conduct of MMLP and President Mnangagwa’s advisor, Mr. Edwin Manikai, a partner at the Zimbabwean law firm, Dube Manikai Hwacha (DMH), and a web of perplexing legal, ethical, criminal, and constitutional intricacies implicating directly President Mnangagwa.

The dispute revolves around the authenticity, validity, and legality of an invoice dated February 7, 2006, issued to DMH in 2006 for purported legal services provided to Mr. Afars Mtausi Gwaradzima.

These services were said to have been rendered to Gwaradzimba in his capacity as an administratively appointed administrator of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM), a Zimbabwean company whose control was vested in Gwaradzimba, the First Plaintiff in the Zambian matter, pursuant to a law that is inconsistent with not only Zambia’s constitution but international law.

The Supreme Court of Zambia found the law to be inconsistent with the constitution of Zambia and declared its application in Zambia to be invalid, as was the reconstruction order issued by Chinamasa and applied to SMM as void ab initio.

However, SMM’s legal existence in Zimbabwe as a company with the power and authority to sue and defend legal action had been terminated by the very law used to assert claims and rights using Zambian courts.

President Mnangagwa, in an affidavit dated December 24, stated under oath in relation to his state of knowledge and involvement in the post-reconstruction affairs of SMM that serves to confirm SMM as an organ of the government of Zimbabwe and not as a company whose control is and must be vested in its directors and not in an administrator appointed to perform administrative functions in relation to this creation by force of law, unlike a company that, in terms of the Companies Act, vests the control and management of a company in its directors who owe a fiduciary not to the appointing authority, i.e., shareholders, but to the company they serve, as follows:

“Ad paragraphs 107–123

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.

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

A Constitutional Conundrum:

The central constitutional question this case raises is whether the right to act as a representative of a company, stripped of control and management due to a law conflicting with Zambia’s public policy, the SADC Treaty and Protocol, and international law, can be legally recognized and enforced.

Michael Mundashi’s Role:

Initially approached by Mr. Edwin Manikai to serve as the legal representative for Gwaradzimba and SMM under Mnangagwa’s control, using Chinamasa as his proxy, Michael Mundashi’s involvement ignited a series of legal and ethical debates, given that the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe determined that the law used to permit Gwaradzimba to act as a representative of SMM, regulated by the Reconstruction Act and not the Companies Act, was invalid ab initio and thus putting the validity and legality of the MMLP invoice to finality..

MMLP’s Response:

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, MMLP has sought to contemptuously assert the validity and legality of the invoice issued pursuant to enforcing rights and claims pursuant to an invalid law and appointment of Gwaradzimba and in turn prosecuting DMH to prosecute and illegality.

Accordingly, a self-created dispute by MMLP solely to justify the refusal and failure of MMLP to be accountable for benefiting from the proceeds of crime being legal fees that Gwaradzimba based on his invalid and illegal relationship with TAP, caused TAP to pay to MMLP in terms of an invoice issued on February 7, 2006 on the premise that the Kajimanga J. judgment of January 30, 2006 was valid and lawful, which it was not as found by a superior court of Zambia,

In a shocking letter written on September 21, 2023, after 17 years since the impugned payment was made to the unjust and unlawful benefit of MMLP, Mr. Chipili Salati, in his capacity as a Partner of MMLP, issued a resolute response to Mr. Peter Smith, a member and officer of the JUSTICE UNDER RULE OF LAW (JUROL) initiative to active citizenship based on shared values underpinned by a founding principle of the supremacy of the constitution, and protect the rule of law in Africa through programs that are aimed to provoking, igniting and inspiring civics literacy as a bridge to an accountable governance system.

MMLP categorically denied any contractual relationship with TAP Zambia Limited (TAP), asserting that their engagement was exclusively with DMH.

The firm according to Mr. Salati maintains notwithstanding the direct and consequential implication of the Supreme Court judgment, of the final verdict on the validity and legality of the invoice pursuant to which TAP was constructively prejudiced, that the involvement of the firm, had concluded in 2007, with no subsequent communication from the purported instructing attorneys in relation to an unlawful purported instruction.

MMLP has contemptuously and illegally repudiated any liability and refused to make good on its unjust enrichment that has put not only the justice system into disrepute but has undermined public confidence in the rule of law in Zambia.

Accountability Evasion:

The central enigma stemming from this case revolves around how MMLP seemingly evaded accountability, despite the labyrinthine legal and ethical questions it raised. The firm’s unwavering denial of responsibility and refusal to engage further in the matter have left many bewildered. This case also underscores the role of politicians in legal affairs and the potential for power abuse, highlighting the need for vigilance and accountability within the legal profession.

Conclusion:

The Michael Mundashi case has thrust into the limelight profound concerns about the administration of justice in Zambia and the broader African context.

It underscores the urgency and importance of upholding the rule of law, principles of justice, and the integrity of legal professionals.

While the legal intricacies of this case may persist, the demand for accountability and transparency within the legal profession remains an issue of paramount importance.

The legal community and society as a whole must continue to scrutinize and uphold the fundamental principles that underpin the rule of law.