Unveiling the extra-territorial application of Legal Warfare per Mnangagwa’s Law against Mutumwa Mawere in South Africa, including elements of South African judicial capture: The Complexities of Jurisdiction and Fraud in Sequestration Proceedings

In the realm of legal disputes, where boundaries of jurisdiction blur and accusations of fraud loom large, a recent case has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The core of this legal battle revolves around sequestration proceedings initiated by SMM Holdings (Private) Limited against Mutumwa Dziva Mawere. However, beneath the surface lies a labyrinth of legal complexities, particularly in the areas of jurisdiction and allegations of fraud, that demand scrutiny and analysis.

Challenging Jurisdiction: The Reconstruction Decree Dilemma

At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental question of jurisdiction. Mutumwa Mawere has boldly contested the authority of the South African court, citing SMM Holdings’ loss of legal status following a reconstruction decree in Zimbabwe on September 6, 2004. This decree, according to Mawere, effectively nullified SMM Holdings’ standing under the Zimbabwean Companies Act, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the legal actions taken against him. The intricate legal arguments surrounding this jurisdictional challenge illuminate broader issues of international legal recognition and enforcement, with potential ramifications for future cross-border legal disputes.

Unmasking Allegations of Fraud: Tarnishing the Pillars of Justice

Adding fuel to the legal fire are damning accusations of fraud leveled against judges and legal representatives involved in the case. Mawere’s claims of fraudulent activities strike at the very core of trust and integrity within the judicial system. The gravity of these allegations cannot be understated, as they not only undermine the fairness of the proceedings but also raise profound concerns about the ethical conduct of legal professionals entrusted with upholding justice. The investigation and resolution of these allegations hold immense significance in restoring faith in the legal process and ensuring transparency and accountability.

Navigating Legal Minefields: Implications and Pathways Forward

As this legal saga unfolds, navigating through the intricate web of jurisdictional challenges and allegations of fraud requires a meticulous approach. The implications of these issues extend beyond the immediate case, casting a spotlight on the intricacies of cross-border legal actions, the nuances of international legal frameworks, and the imperative of upholding the principles of justice and due process.

In conclusion, the complexities surrounding jurisdictional disputes and allegations of fraud in sequestration proceedings underscore the multifaceted nature of legal warfare. This case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges inherent in navigating the legal landscape, particularly in cross-border contexts. As the legal proceedings progress, a steadfast commitment to impartiality, transparency, and adherence to legal principles becomes paramount in ensuring a just and equitable resolution.

Subject: Response to Correspondence Regarding Sequestration Proceedings (SMM Holdings (Private) Limited v. Mutumwa Dziva Mawere)—Case No. 40602/16

Dear Honorable Strydom J,

1. This letter serves as a response to the correspondence dated April 23, 2024, addressed to your Lordship, regarding the sequestration proceedings involving SMM Holdings (Private) Limited and copied to me.
2. I appreciate the opportunity to address the issues raised therein.

Jurisdictional Challenges and Legal Status of SMM Holdings:

• The constitution in terms of s. 2, s. 8(2), s. 9(1), s. 25(1), s. 33(1), s. 34, s. 165(2), s. 172(1)(a), as read with s. 173, compels me to invoke s. 172(1)(a) of the Constitution to assert that Your Lordship’s judgment falls within the ambit of conduct that is invalid and unlawful in terms of s. 2 of the Constitution of South Africa which provides for the supremacy of the Constitution, and any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution including recognizing and enforcing the rights and claims against any South African person is invalid ab initio.
• In addition, any judgment, including Your Lordship’s judgment in favor of the post-September 6, 2004 SMM, a company that was divested and deprived from falling within the ambit of a legal person when its control was removed from the ambit of the Companies Act of Zimbabwe and vested in the appointee of an administratively appointed Administrator outside the four corners of the Companies Act, a law of general application, provided no valid and lawful jurisdiction for the exercise of jurisdiction by any court in terms of s. 165(2) of the Constitution to hear and determine a dispute founded on an invalid law or conduct.
• It is trite that a judgment tainted by fraud on the courts, lack of jurisdiction, and lack of due process is of no force and effect as prescribed in s. 2 of the Constitution.
• In the premises, the constitution provides no jurisdiction for this Court to rectify an invalid exercise of judicial power and discretion.
• It is not in dispute that Your judgment was sought in the litigant that ceased to exist on September 6, 2004, pursuant to the existence and operation of the reconstruction legislative framework, a framework that is ultra vires South African public policy in that it has penal, revenue, and confiscatory effects, it is contrary to the principles and values entrenched and enshrined in the SADC TREATY and PROTOCOL and is contrary to international law.
• Your Lordship will be aware that in relation to the sequestration judgment and order you granted in my absence, is the subject of pending rescission proceedings and that providing Your Lordship with no jurisdiction to preempt and anticipate the outcome of pending matters including the application in the matter 2023-123899 in which I am seeking to impeach the President in terms of his conduct in this matter in terms of s. 172(1)(a) to determine whether the President’s refusal, neglect, and failure to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in terms of s. 83(2)(f) to investigate the validity and legality of judgments sought and granted in the name of SMM as a consequence of the invalid reconstruction law of Zimbabwe.
• I, therefore, wish to register that Your Lordship lacks jurisdiction to respond and accede to the request as doing so would further undermine the reputation and integrity of the Courts as well as the rule of law.
• No dispute exists that a valid Zimbabwean reconstruction decree dated September 6, 2004 (attached hereto as Annexure A), effectively divested SMM Holdings of its legal personhood, rendering it incapable of initiating legal proceedings.
• Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case brought by SMM Holdings.

Constitutional Arguments and Alleged Flaws in Judgment:

1. The entire case, including the involvement of Your Lordship, is incurably tainted by a misrepresentation of SMM Holdings’ legal status.  This violates my right to a fair hearing and due process as enshrined in the South African Constitution (Sections [List relevant sections, e.g., 7, 34]).

Pending Applications and Request for Fair Resolution:

1. I am aware of two pending applications before the South African High Court (Case Numbers 2024-022498 and 2023-123899) that might be relevant to this matter.  I believe a comprehensive review considering these applications and the Zimbabwean reconstruction decree is necessary for a just resolution.
2. It is not in dispute the post-September 6, 2004, liquidation, sequestration, and litigation matters have been marred by unresolved questions surrounding jurisdiction, instances of fraud, and a lack of due process that has persisted since the birth and prosecution of the Mnangagwa Law on September 6, 2004.
3. Despite prior attempts to address these issues, they have not been definitively settled.
4. This ongoing uncertainty undermines the integrity of the legal proceedings and necessitates invoking a constitutional approach to the matter, hence the impeachment proceedings against the President of South Africa.

Specific Concerns and Legal Implications:

1. The matters under Case Numbers: 2022-045016, 2023-123899, and 2023-022498 raise serious legal and constitutional questions regarding:
2. Jurisdiction: Whether the court has the legal authority to hear this case.
3. Fraud: The documented fraudulent activity by judges and the legal representatives in the matters including the rectification of Your Lordship’s invalid and unlawful sequestration judgment that was sought and granted to a legal nullity to assist President Mnangagwa’s corruption to be extra-territorially applied with the assistance of the South African institutions including the Presidency, that directly impact this unprecedented attack on South Africa’s jurisdiction.
4. Due Process Violations: Concerns that fundamental legal rights have been undermined with the knowledge and involvement of SA institutions.
5. These issues have significant legal ramifications and require immediate attention.  Failure to address them promptly has led to:
6. Violation of Constitutional Rights: A real and documented breach of fundamental rights enshrined in the South African Constitution.
7. Erosion of Public Trust: A loss of confidence in the legal system’s ability to deliver fair and just outcomes.
8. Uncertain Legal Precedent: The establishment of a flawed legal precedent impacts future cases.

Call to Action:

29.          Considering these critical concerns, the prescription of s. 172(1)(a) in relation to the consistency of the Zimbabwean reconstruction law and the conduct of all the role players in the South African justice system who have recognized and enforced rights and claims against South African juristic and natural persons brazenly using the governance systems constitutes conduct that is inimical to the rule of law. The collateral attack of judgments tainted by fraud, lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process of the law must be done before responding to the purported unlawful exercise of judicial authority as continues to happen even without complying with the limitations imposed by Rule 7(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court with the knowledge and involvement of the courts that must be independent and impartial.

30.          Furthermore, I believe that the declaratory orders that would address the fraud in relation to the theft of US$4.6 million using the agency of South African courts regarding the CFI shares and the US$2.7 million bribery scandal involving Mr. Van Den Heever who is copied on this matter and the settlement agreement involving a corrupt payment to President Mnangagwa’s cronies in exchange for equipment owned by Petter Trading Pty Limited on claims acquired pursuant to the repugnant and draconian reconstruction law that Your Lordship invalidly and unlawfully relied upon to have jurisdiction to recognize the authority and power for the Administrator of the affairs of the post-September SMM, making the sequestration judgment invalid and illegal.

Copies for Information:

31.          I am copying this response to the President of South Africa, the Deputy Judge President, and the Acting Deputy Judge President, if I do not receive your response in terms of s. 173 of the Constitution by close of business, I intend to launch an urgent court application to interdict and restrain the President, Your Lordship from making any rectification as requested, the DJP, and ADJP from being directly or indirectly being involved in any matters and issues connected to the post-September 6, 2004 assertion, recognition and enforcement of rights and claims founded on the invalid Zimbabwean law pending the s. 172(1)(a) applications.

Conclusion:

32.          The principle that no one is above the law is a cornerstone of our democracy. 

33.          I trust that you will take swift and decisive action to ensure a thorough and impartial review of these critical legal concerns. 

34.          By doing so, we can uphold the integrity of the legal system and ensure that justice prevails in this matter in which President Mnangagwa as admitted to being the driving force and mind behind the corruption inherent in the facts and circumstances.

35.          I am confident that you will be alive to the fact that President Mnangagwa who is on the Magnitsky anti-corruption sanctions list and his assertion in the application under Case Number CCZ 34/21 in which he deposed to a statement of oath in Mr. Tichaona Mupasiri’s quest to hold in him for his involvement and knowledge in terms of s. 2(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe that like Section 2 of the Constitution of South Africa provides for the supremacy of the constitution and that any law, practice, custom, or conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution, is invalid ab initio, it gives context to the invalidity and illegality of your Your Lordship’s conduct in recognizing and enforcing President Mnangagwa’s law that is constitutionally invalid and unlawful and thus of no force and effect:

Ad paragraphs 124-131

73           The laws applied against Air Zimbabwe are valid, binding and extant. So too are all the steps taken pursuant to such laws. I welcome a challenge to these laws. Before that challenge comes and indeed before the laws are struck down as being unconstitutional, my government will apply them. Anything to the contrary is what would amount to a violation by me, of my constitutional obligations.

74           It is not correct that a company established under the repealed Companies Act (Chapter 2403) could not be subjected to other laws apart from the law under which it was established.

36.          It may please Your Lordship to take notice that Mr. Edwin Manikai of DMH Attorneys, the law firm that acted and has acted exclusively in relation to the post=September 6, 2004, affairs of SMM, as President Mnangagwa’s alter ego, could not be possible a legal position including in relation to the sequestration judgment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Take further notice that in opposition to the Mupasiri application under Case Number CCZ 34/21 he stated as follows:

                I EDWIN MANIKAI make oath and state as follows:

Where I relate to legal propositions, I do so on counsel’s advice.

2              I have considered the application filed in this matter. It is in my view a regrettable effort and one that was totally avoidable. I wish for that reason to respond to it in opposition.

3              I have noted the salacious but false allegations made against me, most of which border on the defamatory. I could have dealt with all those allegations had it been necessary for me to do so. I however, note that no relief is sought against me.

4              For the record, I deny each and every allegation made against me as being false.  In a record number of cases, the court has found, whether directly or indirectly, in favour of the validity of the placement of SMM under reconstruction. There will be no need for me to justify a course that has already been upheld by the courts.

5              I have read the affidavit of first respondent. I agree with its contents. I wish to incorporate those contents into my affidavit.

6              I wish to express my disappointment at being asked to account for my representation of my clients.

7              Unlike the first respondent, I am not a public official and may be spared some of these gratuitous attacks. That being the case, I am entitled to my costs on a higher scale upon the dismissal of this unnecessary application.

37.          I trust that the Your Lordship will carefully consider the response set out above in the interests of justice and given the seriousness and urgency of the matter, I would be grateful if you could respond to the constitutional issues and questions inherent in Your sequestration judgement by no later than close of business, today, April 24, 2024.

38.          My rights are strictly reserved.

Sincerely,

Mutumwa Dziva Mawere