Unmasking the Mnangagwa-John Mushayavanhu Web: Public Power, Personal Gain, and the Eroding Rule of Law

Zimbabwe’s legal landscape finds itself at a critical juncture, grappling with a case that not only exposes alleged misconduct but also raises profound questions about the very foundations of governance and justice.

At the heart of this legal and constitutional saga is the troubling nexus between Mnangagwa’s questionable practice, custom, or conduct associated with the use of public power for ulterior motives, a theme that characterized the 37-year Mugabe hegemony whose foot soldiers seem to have acquired a personality and character that is inimical to the rule of law and contrary to the prescription inherent in s. 2(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which limits the exercise of public power for public benefit and imposes binding obligations on every person to ensure that no one is above the law.

Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri, a member of the BANKING ON AFRICA’S FUTURE’s JUSTICE UNDER RULE OF LAW (JUROL) project, which is a platform to shift the mind on what the purpose of life is and ought to be, has started an initiative whose aim is to convert connected people into a community, starting with the idea of building an uber-like platform that is inclusive and promotes the culture of learning, unlearning, and relearning on the simple but complex question of what is a lawyer.

After watching this video: https://vimeo.com/905561057 taken on June 2, 1998, at the 25th anniversary of the founding of the law firm, DMH Attorneys, and listening to the narrative provided by the founding partners as to how the firm started, Mr. Mupasiri was shocked to learn from Mr. Herbert Nkala who showed praise on the guest of honor, President Mnangagwa, who was the guest of honor.

Mr. Nkala was not even ashamed to lie as part of memory recycling to assert boldly that the formation of this firm was President Mnangagwa when in the President’s speech, he was careful to claim a baby without losing any sperm.

Mr. Mupasiri was so outraged to hear Mushayavanhu refer to DMH’s non-existent role in the establishment of FBC Bank when he only joined Standard Chartered Bank after the bank had been established and licensed.

The bank was licensed in August 1997, Mushavayanhu only joined the bank without the agency of President Mnangagwa in October 1997 and DMH commenced operations in June 1998.

Concerning the establishment of the bank, when Mr. Collin Mtangi was asked by a member of BOAF-10KPOL as a cousin of Mr. Edwin Manikai, who claimed in the video that the seed capital to form the firm was provided by a nameless and faceless friend, he indicated that contrary to the fraudulent version given by Manikai’s wife that she mid-wifed the firm into existence when the 3 partners, including her husband, provided no financial contribution.

It is significant that Mtangi’s version was that the offices of DMH Attorneys were offices funded and provided to the firm not on the basis of friendship between Manikai and Mutumwa Mawere but as part of promoting, provoking, igniting, and inspiring black legal practitioners to understand that nothing self-creates and without Mawere’s involvement in the acquisition of SMM, DMH would be a bad dream yet the refusal, failure, and fraudulent concealment by the founding partners that absent Mawere’s involvement, DMH Attorneys was not seeded from Mnangagwa’s mind on day 0, he was simply missing in action yet Manikai, his wife and his two other partners Selby Hwacha and Canaan Dube had the audacity of openly and overtly lying that the firm started in between the ears of the 3 geniuses when this was a blatant lie exposing the unconscionable, egregious and capricious minds that surround the President.

After learning and establishing in the context of his application under Case Number CCZ 34/21 that Tichaona Mupasiri, launched in December 2021, sought in terms of s. 167(2)(d) and s. 167(3) to hold President Mnangagwa accountable for his role in the birth and prosecution of a diabolic and repugnant law using the agency of DMH Attorneys, the very firm that owes its existence to Mawere, the President, rather than complying with his oath and in terms of s. 114 of the Constitution, used the agency of DMH Attorneys to prosecute his opposition to Mupasiri’s application.

This is a story for another day, as this story is about Mushayavanhu whose treachery is legendary and whose support system includes a cabal that imagines the past and its events even though the past is not related to the motives and agendas.

Mupasiri has taken a step forward by seeking Mushayavanhu in court proceedings under Case Number HCH 1791/24 as set out below:

———- Forwarded message ———

From: <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024, 15:23

Subject: Affidavit Successfully Submitted

To: <[email protected]>

Hello,

This is to notify you that you have successfully submitted your Affidavit in Case HCH1791/24 to the High Court Harare. Your submission is now waiting for a compliance check. Please note that compliance check is done during registry hours.

Regards

IECMS Support Team

To the extent that Mushayavanhu is now the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mupasiri is a member of BOAF and a Point of Light on problems, he believes that the appointment is not a structured decision that constitutes a valid and lawful exercise of public power and as such it is in the interests of justice that he is afforded to give his version of events so that the fraudulent averments he made on video are independently and impartially tested to determine validity and legality.

He said: “I stand on my two feet rather than on my knees, begging for the abuse of public power to be a person, and the application is not against the person of the President, Mushayavanhu, Nkala, Manikai, his wife, Canaan Dube, and Selby Hwacha, but s. 2(2) of the Constitution is the first and last victim of corrupt practices, and it is important that the constitutional promise is fulfilled without any exception. In terms of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, unlike me, who is not an oath-taking person, the President’s duties are specially prescribed in s. 90(1), as read with s. 90(2)(c).”

The constitution compels every person to obey, defend, respect, and uphold the constitution as the supreme law, and in terms of s. 62(2) of the Constitution, it compels any holder of information to disclose it when requested to do so.

The intricacies of this case reveal a web of connections involving financial institutions and legal entities, painting a picture of influence and manipulation that demands scrutiny.

Central to Mupasiri’s claims is the accusation that Mushayavanhu, wielding the authority of the RBZ, orchestrated a divestment process that raises serious questions about conflicts of interest against Mawere whose control and direction of the bank that did not self-create, he colluded using public power fraudulently acquire a significant shareholding in the bank after public power was used to divest and deprive Mawere of all rights and freedoms in relation to all companies that he had aa right, title and interest in prior to September 6, 2004 when Chinamasa issued via a notice in the government gazette an extra-judicial reconstruction order whose effect was to allow Chinamasa based on Mnangagwa’s instructions to have a relationship with the targeted companies permitting him to dismiss the directors who controlled and directed the affected companies and were lawfully and validly appointed by the shareholders of the companies of which Mawere was the sole shareholder.

This alleged misuse of public power, if proven, not only undermines trust in public institutions but also erodes the very rule of law that forms the bedrock of a just society.

The inherent danger in this situation extends beyond individual actions; it strikes at the heart of governance integrity and public trust. When public officials are suspected of manipulating legal processes or financial institutions for personal benefit, the consequences are profound. Public confidence wavers, businesses hesitate to invest, and the rule of law itself comes under scrutiny.

The implications of this case extend far beyond Zimbabwe’s borders. It serves as a stark reminder of the constant vigilance required to ensure that public power remains a force for good, not personal enrichment. The legal frameworks and constitutional safeguards in place must be upheld with unwavering dedication to prevent the erosion of trust and the abuse of authority.

As this case unfolds, crucial questions emerge:

How can constitutional frameworks be strengthened to prevent the misuse of public power?

What measures can be implemented to ensure transparency and accountability in financial and legal spheres?

How can a culture of ethical conduct and public service integrity be fostered and maintained?

The answers to these questions are not just pertinent to Zimbabwe but resonate globally. The case at hand underscores the universal importance of upholding the rule of law, safeguarding public trust, and ensuring that public power serves the common good, not personal gain.

In conclusion, the Zimbabwean legal web being unveiled in this case serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between power and responsibility. It challenges us to reexamine our institutions, strengthen our commitments to justice and integrity, and reaffirm our collective dedication to the principles that underpin a fair and equitable society.