Dr. Daniel Shumba as a self-actor asks a simple but poignant question – Who is so cruel in Zimbabwe to hijack the control of SMM to use it to attack Mawere in South Africa?

Misrepresentation of Sequestration Judgment:

• Dr. Daniel Shumba, President of UDA, a Zimbabwean political party who applied for leave to intervene in an application launched by Mr. Mawere, in relation to corporate coup authored and prosecuted by President Mnangagwa, the award winning Chief Recall or Coup Architect, alleges that the sequestration judgment against Mr. Mawere was obtained under a false premise that SMM continued to fall under the Companies Act of Zimbabwe. He claims that SMM ceased to be a juristic entity and became an organ of the government of Zimbabwe.
• The intentional misrepresentation is framed not just as a legal error but as a fraud on the courts, emphasizing the need for intervention to uphold constitutional principles.
  Dismissal from Parliament and Controversial Nature:
• Dr. Shumba claims that his attempts to hold Zimbabwean Ministers of Mines and Justice
  accountable for the reconstruction process led to his dismissal from Parliament. This suggests a contentious and politically charged atmosphere surrounding the SMM matter.
• The dismissal adds a layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about potential political interference and legal irregularities.
• Clarifying SMM’s Legal Status:
• Dr. Shumba asserts that the application is crucial in providing the court with a clear
  understanding of SMM’s legal non-existence following the Reconstruction Act. This is presented as essential for determining the validity of the sequestration judgment.
• Clarifying the legal status of SMM becomes a focal point, as it directly impacts the court’s assessment of the case
  Preventing Miscarriage of Justice:
• Dr. Shumba argues that without this application, the travesty of justice will continue, providing an incentive for cross-border invasions based on public power in foreign states. He suggests that
  bona fide legal processes risk perpetuating a miscarriage of justice by recognizing a non-existent entity as a valid creditor.
• This introduces a broader context, emphasizing the potential implications of the case on legal processes and justice across borders.