Prof. Mupasiri and Another v The President of Zimbabwe and Manikai: 23rd of March 2022 ConCourt proceedings

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brian-tawanda-manyati-67859875_meet-google-drive-one-place-for-all-your-activity-6912556274089906176-JU25

In the civic interest of public awareness, audios of live ConCourt proceedings on the 23rd of March 2022 have been upoaded for ready access to the Google drive folder on the Prof. Mupasiri and Another v The President of Zimbabwe and Manikai Constitutional Court fillings kindly note.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MK7URritVa1d_Z9SkpHQt0sMwL8YJ_i1

[03/23, 09:51] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: Morning
[03/23, 09:51] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: We are in court.
[03/23, 09:52] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: We should be starting at 10am.

[03/23, 09:52] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: Who needs a recording of the proceedings?

[03/23, 09:52] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: I do
[03/23, 09:52] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: Kindly be with God’s grace 🙏

[03/23, 09:53] FCM Mutanda WIAL: I do thank you

[03/23, 09:53] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: God decreed that we must be here and by his grace we are a living testimony that his will will always be done and we are just vessels in the chain.

[03/23, 09:57] FCM Mutanda WIAL: Amen

May the Lord give the wisdom and words.

Moses said to God but I cannot speak properly. How can I speak to Pharaoh?

But the Lord said I am with you.

He is with you
Go on brother

[03/23, 09:58] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: Thanks for your guidance and willingness to listen and add value to what is now on paper and history in motion.

The outcome is shared.

If we fail, it is because we tried.

[03/23, 10:09] +263 71 764 8807: I do

[03/23, 10:40] +27 79 446 6649: I do

[03/23, 12:24] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: The matter has been postponed to 11 May 2022.

The order is that the issue for determination is the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the Mupasiri matter.

Then the war erupted between me and the Court on what jurisdiction means when the constitution confere exclusive jurisdiction on the CC to determine the challenge based on evidence.

[03/23, 13:11] +263 77 400 2285: I do

[03/23, 14:01] +263 77 386 1572: Kindly provide Sir

[03/23, 14:02] +263 71 764 8807: Confirm the war with the Courts ended on a good platform

[03/23, 17:34] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: With jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter is the Constitutional Court itself as the Zimbabwean Constitution dictates that it is the only ground there is when a section 167(2) and (3) challenge.

[03/23, 18:17] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: Thank you. I listened in.

[03/23, 18:21] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: It is a good thing you registered it before the presiding judge that you are against the second issue of determining if the Constitutional Court is the valid ground for hearings. Though I did not hear your reasons, I amply can spell out it is because the Constitution dictates that the Constitutional Court itself is the valid ground for section 167(2) and (3) cause.

[03/23, 18:28] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: Depending with the outcome after your submissions today as the second and intervening applicant, I have two propositions:

1. If the presiding judge/s eventually agreed that surely it cannot be debated further that the jurisdiction is with them all is well. However,
2. If they ended at only taking and noting down your submission/s against the second issue, all Prof. Mupasiri shall need to do on the 11th of May is to acknowledge yes he agreed to determining whether or not, but his arguments are in the line of asserting that the ConCourt already is with jurisdiction because of a, b, c, d which points he then lays before the court. As for you you maintain your position and lay out your reasons for arguing so also.

[03/23, 18:33] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: Prof. Mupasiri did well also to put accross the Justice Rita Makarau recusal issue and him wanting her last decision, of not wanting to recuse herself, reversed before stepping forward. For procedural fairness before, during and after, that is a key thing warranting attention and rectification true.

[03/23, 20:07] Entrepreneurship vaMutumwa Mawere: [3/23, 4:07 PM] Rikki: What have they raised on the jurisdiction issue? Or is the court taking the issue up on itself ?

[3/23, 5:17 PM] mdmawere1: They are determined to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction

[3/23, 7:00 PM] Rikki: Who raised the question of lack of jurisdiction. The Court or your opponents?

[3/23, 7:41 PM] mdmawere1: No one.

[03/24, 01:53] briantawandamanyati at African Development Associates: I kindly have listened in to all the audios, it’s never easy inside the court, you both did well and independently so, the self acting applicant that being Prof. Mupasiri and the intervening/joining applicant that being Mr. Mawere. The issue of parties being independent, especially the 1st and original applicant Prof. Mupasiri being on his own, got bolstered by the intervening/joining applicant’s show of intention to withdraw if the house/court is to him not sat up convincingly and if what the 1st respondent asserted in his answering affidavit of a determination already having been made is an issue of unchallenged skewness so far and if at all it warrants a separate application than a joinder. The Chief Justice for a start held himself well in my view, he explained the rule/s of the court, even the thinking of the bench. The line of thinking of the intervening/joining applicant to only be taking part when the bench is sat by parties totly independent and conflict of interest free due to previous and relating rulings and to have wanted that aspect of recusals to have had been ironed out before the 11th of May is quite clear to me and I think the CJ noted it which is why he did not quickly write down (as he spoke/highlighted last) that there is a withdrawal by the intervening/joining applicant as yet. The CJ rather with wisdom gave room for consideration of withdrawal or not or any other action that the ConCourt gets informed about between now and the 11th of May. In my view it only means within his court’s rules what he has on record right now is that there may be an intention to withdraw by the intervening/joining applicant, he aimed at ensuring there is full understanding of the court rules before anyone hurriedly reaches any position which is a good thing the CJ did. The position let out that the intervening/joining applicant came in viz a viz or on the background of averments made by the first and second respondent in their opposing affidavits was worth mentioning as occurred inside court within the allowed time to support one’s disagreement with the issue of jurisdiction determination coming up as the first issue on the 11th of May. That the CJ also highlighted that the jurisdiction issue is generic no matter what issue is up for hearing or not by the ConCourt is also okay. The CJ also was right on asserting that the disputed action of DMH representing the 1st respondent when instead the locus standi is with the AG office be heard as part of the debate/hearing of the 11th of May. By and large the 11th of May is cast in stone God willing. So robust arguments now are what is needed next. Thank you.