Title: Challenges to Judicial Independence and International Law: A Case Study of Zimbabwe, Zambia, South Africa, and Tanzania

Introduction: The recent case involving Mupasiri’s application in Zimbabwe and its subsequent impact in Zambia and South Africa has raised significant concerns regarding judicial independence and adherence to international law. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the matter, emphasizing the adverse effects on public policy and constitutional principles. It underscores the importance of safeguarding judicial autonomy to promote justice and maintain the rule of law. Additionally, recent events in Tanzania involving billionaire Rostam Aziz further underscore the sensitivity surrounding the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Zimbabwe’s Offending Law and its Repetition in Zambia and South Africa: The case centers around the allegations made by Mr. Edwin Manikai, advisor and attorney to Mupasiri, against President Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe. Manikai claimed that the President was involved in ulterior political motives regarding the introduction of a decree and the issuance of an order related to SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM) and its affiliated companies. These actions were carried out under the Zimbabwean Reconstruction of State-Indebted Companies Act, a law that has raised concerns about its compatibility with Zimbabwean public policy and international law. Unfortunately, similar precedents were established in Zambia and South Africa, exacerbating the issue.

South Africa: Violation of Constitutional Principles: In South Africa, the rights acquired through this unprecedented law were asserted in judicial proceedings. However, these actions contradicted Section 2 of the South African constitution, which states that any law or conduct inconsistent with the constitution is void ab initio. The disregard for constitutional principles poses a grave threat to the integrity of the judiciary and undermines public confidence in the legal system.

Zambia: Questionable Judgment and Coercion: In Zambia, a judgment was sought through the agency of Mr. Michael Mundashi, Senior Counsel, and partner at Mulenga Mundashi Legal Partners (MMLP). The Presiding Judge, Kajimanga J, issued an order in favor of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Afaras Mtausi Gwaradzimba, who was appointed outside the provisions of the Zimbabwean Companies Act to administer SMM’s affairs. Gwaradzimba was given control and management rights over the company, which had been placed under the Minister of Justice’s control through the Reconstruction Act, not the Companies Act. This judgment relied on a law offensive to Zambian public policy and international law.

Tanzania: Remarks Impacting Judicial Independence: In Tanzania, billionaire Rostam Aziz made remarks that raised doubts about the independence of the country’s judiciary. During a press conference, Aziz expressed concerns over the potential for a leader to call and instruct the courts on their decisions, which could undermine the judiciary’s independence. In response, the Judges and Magistrates Association of Tanzania demanded that Aziz either provide evidence supporting his allegations or publicly apologize. Aziz later clarified that his remarks were not intended to undermine the judiciary but rather to emphasize the importance of proper procedures in investments. This incident highlights the sensitivity surrounding the independence and integrity of Tanzania’s judiciary and underscores the significance of responsible public statements.

Implications for the Rule of Law: The Mupasiri case and the events in Tanzania involving Rostam Aziz demonstrate the challenges faced by judiciaries in upholding their independence and the rule of law. These incidents highlight the need to preserve judicial autonomy, uphold international legal standards, and ensure responsible public discourse. By safeguarding judicial independence and promoting responsible public statements, societies can maintain the rule of law, strengthen public trust in the judiciary, and foster an environment conducive to justice and fairness.

Conclusion: The Mupasiri case, along with the recent events in Tanzania involving Rostam Aziz, highlights the challenges faced by judiciaries in upholding their independence and the rule of law. These incidents underscore the sensitivity surrounding the integrity of the judiciary and the importance of responsible public statements.

The Mupasiri case revealed the questionable application of the Zimbabwean Reconstruction of State-Indebted Companies Act, which raised concerns about its compatibility with public policy and international law. This offending law was also replicated in Zambia and South Africa, disregarding constitutional principles and further eroding public trust in the legal systems.

Additionally, Rostam Aziz’s remarks in Tanzania, although clarified later, raised doubts about the independence of the judiciary. The incident emphasizes the need for responsible public statements that respect the constitutional responsibility of the court and recognize the importance of proper procedures in investments.

These developments have far-reaching implications for the rule of law in the region. Preserving judicial autonomy, upholding international legal standards, and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary are crucial in maintaining justice, accountability, and public trust in the legal system.

It is imperative that societies and governments prioritize the protection of judicial independence and the promotion of responsible public discourse. By doing so, they can ensure the integrity of the judiciary, reinforce the rule of law, and create a just and equitable society for all.