The Mnangagwa and Mushayavanhu Factor: Unraveling a Web of Corruption, Sanctions, and International Complicity

In a tangled saga spanning borders and legal jurisdictions, a web of corruption, constitutional breaches, and international complicity has come to light, revealing shocking allegations that strike at the core of Zimbabwe’s governance and accountability.

At the center of this maelstrom is President Mnangagwa, whose alleged collusion with high-ranking officials and influential legal entities has led to a hijacking of companies deemed to be under the control of his nemesis, Mutumwa Mawere. The intricate maneuvers orchestrated through public power and legal maneuvers have raised serious questions about the rule of law and transparency in Zimbabwe.

Tichaona Mupasiri’s courageous filing of a Notice of Motion against Reserve Bank Governor John Mushayavanhu has peeled back layers of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and violations of constitutional principles. The allegations, ranging from the illegal divestment of control from Mawere to the involvement of multinational corporations like Coca-Cola in bribery scandals, paint a damning picture of systemic corruption.

One of the most concerning revelations is the complicity of South African entities and individuals, including President Ramaphosa, in shielding Mnangagwa from accountability. The protection sought for Mnangagwa in South African courts, coupled with the intricate legal maneuvers orchestrated by law firms and practitioners, underscores a troubling trend of enabling corruption and impunity.

The involvement of multinational corporations like Coca-Cola adds another dimension to this saga. The alleged fraudulent payment of US$2.7 million in exchange for equipment that rightfully belonged to Petter Trading, a company owned by Mawere, raises questions about corporate accountability and ethical business practices.

Furthermore, the assertion by Mnangagwa that he is not bound by constitutional limitations, as revealed in judicial proceedings, highlights a brazen disregard for the rule of law and democratic principles.

The implications of these revelations are profound, touching on issues of international law, regional treaties, sovereignty, and the cross-border assertion of rights. The refusal to recognize the supremacy of constitutional provisions and the manipulation of legal frameworks for personal gain strike at the heart of democratic governance.

As this complex and troubling narrative continues to unfold, it raises urgent questions about the role of international institutions, legal systems, and corporate actors in upholding ethical standards and combating corruption. Will accountability prevail, or will the powerful continue to evade justice under the guise of legal maneuvering and international complicity?

The stakes are high, and the world is watching as Zimbabwe’s governance and legal systems face a crucial test of integrity and transparency.

Tichaona Mupasiri, a member of the Africa Heritage Society’s BOAF-10POL-JLI-AI Africa Initiative, filed a Notice of Motion against the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, John Mushayavanhu, with the High Court of Zimbabwe.

The motion alleges unconstitutional conduct, conflicts of interest, and violations of accountability and transparency principles by Mushayavanhu, with alleged collusion with President Mnangagwa.

Mushayavanhu is accused of facilitating the divestment of control from businessman Mutumwa Mawere for personal benefit and that of legal firm DMH Attorneys, linked to Mnangagwa.

The core allegations involve the acquisition of shares in FBC Bank using public power and DMH Attorneys’ services, violating Zimbabwe’s Constitution on conflicts of interest, and misuse of public office.

The affidavit suggests a US$2.7 million bribery scandal involving TCCC, Gwaradzimba, Manikai, and others, raising concerns about financial institutions’ integrity in Zimbabwe.

A link is mentioned between the bribery scandal and the acquisition of SZL equipment, with allegations of a corrupt and fraudulent scheme involving Mnangagwa’s cabal and illegal divestment of Mawere’s control.

John Mushayavanhu and DMH Attorneys became shareholders of FBC Attorneys following an attack on Mutumwa Mawere led by Mnangagwa through a reconstruction law.

The corrupt payment of US$2.7 million from TCCC to Mnangagwa could have been invested in FBC Bank to conceal the involvement of Moyo and Msipa in the coup against Mawere.

The Mnangagwa law was designed to include any entity under Mawere’s control before September 6, 2004, leading to control by Mnangagwa’s appointees like Gwaradzimba and Chinamasa.

President Ramaphosa has sought protection for Mnangagwa in South African courts, preventing challenges to Mnangagwa’s actions regarding Mawere.

Mr. Moyo, a close friend of President Ramaphosa, played a role in acquiring a South African beverage company, suggesting connections across borders.

Mr. Kaplan, as the joint provisional liquidator of Mawere’s South African company, was involved in exposing a corrupt scheme involving TCCC.

A letter from J C Adendorff to David Mokwena on October 12, 2006, outlines details of the bribery scheme involving Coca-Cola’s interests in SZL and the nationalization of SZL by Zimbabwean authorities.

Coca-Cola paid US$2,700,000 to FLAM and SMM for the SZL equipment, as advised by the Administrator.

Coca-Cola claimed to have paid for various equipment and invoices related to the SZL plant, including electrical equipment and a sugar-dissolving plant.

There’s uncertainty regarding specific invoices and amounts paid by Coca-Cola.

J C Adendorff, acting as a joint liquidator, is sought advice from Mr. Mokwena on the amounts paid by Coca-Cola for the Bottling Plant and the contributions made by Petter Trading to Coca-Cola’s enrichment.

Adendorff’s inquiry was related to the links between Coca-Cola’s payments and Petter Trading’s contributions to Coca-Cola’s enrichment. Shortly after the letter, Mr. Adendorff was removed from the case by Mr. Theordor Van Den Heever who had appointed him as his personal representative to deal with this explosive matter involving corruption that was authored and prosecuted against South African persons by an organ of the government of Zimbabwe based on Mnangagwa’s hegemony and TCCC’s determined attempt to escape the scrutiny regarding its intentional conduct that resulted in the fraudulent payment of US$2.7 million in exchange for equipment that belonged to Petter Trading, a company wholly owned by Mawere.

It is not in dispute that the appointment of Van Den Heever as a joint liquidator of Petter Trading was orchestrated by Mnangagwa’s cabal using South Africa law firms and legal practitioners who include Ms. Kirsty Simpson who now works for the firm, DLA Piper (RF) South Africa Inc., and prior to this she worked on the Mawere-related matters for the firms – Brink Cohen Le Roux (BCLR), a law that was acquired by ENS Africa Inc, a firm that Ms. Simpson also worked for in relation to these matters.

Advocate Bothma, senior counsel, has been a constant feature in the matter.

The law firms directly implicated in this matter are ENS Africa, Cliff Dekker Hoffmeyer (CDH) Inc.; and DLA-Piper. The individual oath-taking attorneys who have been involved in this matter include Ms. Fahdia Bhayat, formerly with CDH, Mr. Pieter Colyn, formerly with BCLR and now with ENS, Mr. Tim Fletcher, CDH, and Ms. Simpson (DLA-Piper.

It is worth highlighting that Mr. Mupasiri who is now a person of significant interest to President Ramaphosa is the applicant in the matter under Case Number 2024-022498 in which President Ramaphosa is cited as a Respondent including Coca-Cola Africa Pty Limited in which he is seeking in terms of s. 172(1)(a) as read with s. 172(1)(b), s. 173, s. 2 and s. 165(2) of the Constitution of South Africa to expose the Mnangagwa factor in the post-September 6, 2004 that has in the main involved the validity and legality of the assertion of rights and claims acquired pursuant to the Mnangagwa law against South African persons by a creature of this draconian and repugnant law that is inconsistent with s. 2 of the Constitution of South Africa in that this law is also penal, revenue and confiscatory.

The law permits the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to issue an extra-judicial reconstruction order against a juristic person whose affairs universally must fall under the ambit of the Companies Act and yet in relation to the Mnangagwa law, the affairs of a purported company under reconstruction fall under the reconstruction legislative framework that Mnangagwa directly controls as confirmed in his sworn statement in an affidavit in support of his opposition of Mupasiri’s matter under Case Number CCZ 34/21:

“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. These 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.

This matter raises serious legal, constitutional, international law, regional treaties, and protocols, extra-territorial application of Zimbabwean law in South Africa, sovereignty, cross-border assertion of rights and claims, the jurisdiction of South African courts to recognize and enforce rights and claims founded on a law that is inconsistent with s. 2 that provides for the supremacy of the constitution, and the existence and operation of a law that is inconsistent with s. 2(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe that provides that any law, practice, custom, or conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid ab initio.

The shocking averments made to the effect that President Mnangagwa is not bound by the limitations imposed by s. 2(1) of the Constitution are instructive of his attitude and approach to the matter. He asserts in judicial proceedings that the opinion of his appointee regarding the constitutional validity and legality of a law that Mnangagwa weaponized is his order, including judgments of a judiciary that he controls in Zimbabwe.

This information is known to President Ramaphosa, but he has alternatively chosen to attack US sanctions against Zimbabwe and focus on the Gaza issue while actively encouraging Mnangagwa to use South African institutions including the Master of the High Court and liquidators to complete the decimation of Mawere which he could not accomplish since September 6, 2004.

Take note of the information on this link:

https://heyzine.com/flip-book/a39e9192b4.html