Connect with us

Opinion

The Great Betrayal: Pursuit of Wide Readership Versus Facts In The Media Industry

Tapuwa Chitambo

Published

on

Tapuwa Chitambo

Tapuwa Chitambo, 14/02/2021

Following the publication of an article in the Newsday titled ‘SA democracy and Constitutionalism put under spotlight’ written by Garikai Mafirakurewa, I took it upon myself to establish the basis on which this title was used.

Initially, when I read in the State controlled media publications on the reasons why SMM was placed under Reconstruction, I naturally believed the version whuch was proffered by the government.

This is because it had long been made to appear that funds due to SMM from its customers and which were transmitted through SAS, its South African based agent, were diverted at the instigation of Mr. Mawere using an alleged fraudulent judgment.

Just like many other people, I had concluded that the decision to issue the Reconstruction Order in relation to SMM was legitimate and in order not knowing the real facts on the ground.

I later on came to realize that the existence and operations of the Reconstruction of State Indebted and Insolvent Companies Act posed a grave risk to the rule of law and constitutionalism not only in South Africa where it was recognized and enforced, but to the whole of the Africa continent.

At first, I had no idea that the SMM dispute had been exported to South Africa by the government of Zimbabwe which had disguised itself as SMM, the company with a corporate legal identity and existence.

As such, when I read Garikai’ story in the Newsday, which referred to Mutumwa Mawere as a self-exiled Zimbabwean businessman who had put the South African justice system under spotlight, I was flabbergasted to see that the context of Janice’s letter had been twisted, distorted and had taken a diversionary angle.

This is because I personally read the contents of Janice Greaver’s letter addressed to the Johannesburg based, Deputy Judge President, Mr. Mojapelo on behalf of the C2C Literacy initiative only to discover that the published article’s focus was now on Mutumwa Mawere rather than the rule of law.

Janice’s letter was meant to address the legality and constitutionality of the decision to recognize and enforce the consequences of a law that offends South Africa’s public policy.

Below is a thread of my conversation with Garikai Mafirakurewa in an attempt to address such a media anomaly.

[1/25, 5:30 PM] Tapuwa Chitambo: [08:06, 25/01/2021] Gandanga: Hi Garikai. My name is Tapuwa Chitambo secretary general of FOSMM and a member of the C2C initiative. How was your article on the South African judiciary received? Any possibilities of continuation of this conversations with your paper?

[11:30, 25/01/2021] Garikai Mafirakureva: Hie how are you? I thought we can continue with the story but Mr Mawere is picking on trivial issues which in my view should be corrected between us than going to town over simple issues

 [1/26, 5:33 AM] Tapuwa Chitambo: Is He is the one who coined the self-exiled business man?

 [1/26, 1:25 PM] Tapuwa Chitambo: [06:33, 26/01/2021] Gandanga: Are these issues centered around the title self-exiled business man?

[09:43, 26/01/2021] Garikai Mafirakureva: Yaaa those were the issues and I thought in the next article we will correct such issues and continue with our story until we are heard. But he stuck on that? That story was well received by many readers but he killed the fire to continue with the story.

I believe that the approach that Garikai took in the headline and introduction of following story was more centered on pleasing his audience through using a catchy but misleading title rather than to convey news of public interest in way that enlightens the masses on issues of concern to their circumstances.

“SA democracy and constitutionalism put under spot light

Self-exiled Zimbabwean businessman, Mutumwa Mawere, has put to test the South African judiciary system questioning its sincerity in upholding democracy, the rule of law and constitutionalism without risking major diplomatic implications.

The move if not properly handled will poke holes on South African democracy and expose her hypocrisy and judiciary capture. 

Janice Greaver, C2C corporate literacy initiative management consultant wrote to the justice department, questioning the role played by the court in promoting and protecting the rule of law when Maweres case was handled, and the part it played in undermining the rule of law in relation to corporate matters…”.

It is actually interesting to note that in spite of the following correspondence between Garikai and Mutumwa Mawere to clarify on issues that were not in line with Janice’s letter and after highlighting the error of being self-exiled, the article went on to be published as it was.

This on its own shows that the media or journalists in particular can mislead people and brush aside information which is of value to their communities in an attempt to attract the maximum number of readers.

If such a reality is allowed to continue, it means that the media will no longer be playing its oversight role in the affairs of mankind and that fact on its own is enough evidence on the great betrayal of people’s confidence by the Fourth Estate.

[11:01 AM, 1/20/2021] mdmawere1: My view is that the story involves C2C and Janice. If this is the case, should this not be the starting point to limit the story to the subjects in it?

[11:03 AM, 1/20/2021] mdmawere1: Do you agree that I pursued all legal options in SA and failed in SA to convince the judiciary that recognizing and enforcing the Reconstruction Act in SA was a violation of International Law?

[11:10 AM, 1/20/2021] mdmawere1: On what basis would be the allegation that “SA democracy and constitutionalism is put under the spotlight?” Who do you allege is putting the SA democracy and constitutionalism under the spotlight? You then state as true and fact that I am self-exiled, where did you get this information? I am not in self-exile. For your information, I have been living and working outside Zimbabwe since 1988. I have no received any mail in Zimbabwe since them. I have been a resident of SA since 1988 and I am only naturalized as a citizen in 2002. The events of SMM started in 2004 when I was already a citizen of SA and a resident since 1998. Where does this allegation of self-exile come from? Perhaps you have better facts to support this. You then state that I have put to test the SA judiciary system questioning its sincerity in upholding democracy, the rule of law and constitutionalism without risking diplomatic implications. In saying this, you do not provide any source of this allegation. It would help the reader if you provided the content and context of the allegation. *SA democracy and constitutionalism put under spot light.

[1:22 PM, 1/20/2021] Garikai Mafirakureva: It won’t be of any interest to Zimbabwean readership because they don’t who is Janice and what is C2C but they know SMM and Mawere. Why try to kill a story by focusing on an unknown. To make matters worse SMM and Mawere were cited as a case study.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Zimbabwe State’ Capture – Fact or Fiction?

Mutumwa Mawere

Published

on

Mutumwa Mawere, 10/02/2021

Mark Heywood, editor of the DailyMaverick which published a report on the alleged state capture in Zimbabwe asserted as true and fact that this untested report ‘provides a post mortem of the cancer that killed the Zimbabwean dream of freedom and independence’.

To what extent is this report based on empirical evidence is a question that cannot easily be answered but it is clear that like sanctions, its impact on Zimbabwe public policy choices will always be a subject of disputes.

The mere fact that this report has been cited by the US Senate is problematic on its own as further international spotlight on Zimbabwe from external sources is unlikely to change the attitude of Zimbabwe’s public officer bearers especially when the facts supporting the conclusions of the report are speculative at best.

Against a backdrop of a divided nation, the risk of this report being regarded as a regime change project is high especially having regard that the South African government is not convinced that corruption is the driving force behind the Zimbabwean crisis

Is it not ironic that SADC and the AU have not recognized and accepted that state capture is a real problem as was the case in South Africa in relation to former President Zuma’s administration?

What if in Zimbabwe the approach to the state capture issue is that it is a ploy sponsored by white monopoly capture to take control of the state under the guise of restoration of the rule of law through partisan anti-corruption campaign?

It is unmistakable that there exists no shared understanding of what state capture is and is not in South Africa to allow this new morality to be exported to a country like Zimbabwe.

The identity and personality of cartels in Zimbabwe as is the case in South Africa has taken a partisan approach and this is not helpful where people are divided and polarized.

Has state capture been weaponized to achieve regime change?

It has been argued that a project to unconstitutionally unseat Zuma as President was couched as an anti-corruption enterprise but regrettably the frontiers of corruption have not been reduced in the post-Zuma era.

Does this report whose release has opened new wounds on the future of Zimbabwe and South Africa, truly and impartially expose the alleged destructive effects that elite cartels play in robbing the country’s future or it is yet another misguided project to build walls between citizens?

It is significant that Mnangagwa, who credits himself as an anti-corruption champion, is himself fingered in the report as being one of the bosses who run lucrative cartels in a wide range of commodities at the expense of the average Zimbabwean.

Does any rational mind think that in the quietness of his time, Mnangagwa considers himself as a villain in relation to the Zimbabwean economic and political quagmire? Obviously not.

On Tuesday, 9 February 2021, the report was raised by Republican US Senator Jim Risch, member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee retweeted a Daily Maverick tweet on the Zimbabwe report.

 “State capture and corruption in #Zimbabwe continue to be a concern of mine. A timely report released by @dailymaverick exposes the destructive effects that elite cartels play in robbing the country’s future. Our partners, the Zimbabwean people, deserve better. #DemLoot,” is very unhelpful to the Zimbabwean cause.” Risch tweeted.

It is also self-evident that the report comes at a time when there exists no domestic voice that is speaking to the reality of the facts contained in the report and it is significant that businessman Zunaid Moti’s former adviser, Mr. Peter Hain, a British Labour peer, also retweeted the report, saying: “Zimbabwe: Explosive cartel report uncovers the anatomy…@dailymaverick.”

What is remarkable is that people like former DA leader Mmusi Maimane, whose locus standi to poke his nose into Zimbabwean matters is controversial and questionable, tweeted as follows: “This exposé by the @dailymaverick is very important for every Africans to read.”

Mr. David Coltart, a Zimbabwean, joined the chorus by tweeting as follows: “If you are puzzled why such a wealthy country, with such intelligent, well educated people can be so poor, then read this report published today in @dailymaverick. It explains how and why a network of cartels is plundering #Zimbabawe.”

The mere fact that the report was authored in Zimbabwe and published in South Africa creates its own political dynamics.

This is true especially having regard to the reality of the real divisions in the ANC between two extreme narratives that speak to radical economic transformation as the panacea to lift the country out of its challenges and the alternative narrative that speaks to neo-liberal policies as the only promise.

If the authors of the report cannot speak on their feet to substantiate their serious allegations, what should be the probative value of this report?

“It would appear that the report has a defined audience and agenda,” said one analyst who is perplexed that this report is trending when the reality on the ground is dire.

Common sense, logic and reason would inform a rational view that corruption by nature is allergic to transparency and openness.

In the premises, where would authentic data be sourced from to substantiate the claims of graft and real smuggling operations?

Gossip that Mugabe was surrounded by a cabal of criminals informed the coup but since 2017, no cogent evidence has been produced to confirm this allegation.

No one has been successfully prosecuted and the so-called anti-corruption have yet to provide any evidence supporting or disputing the allegation that Mugabe was the fulcrum of corrupt activities.

Equally, the Zondo Commission has exposed the fact that corruption was democratically distributed and although the agenda to nail Zuma and humiliate him was the goal, the reality is scary.

Even the Zondo Commission is unlikely to impact on this vice and interestingly, accusations are already galore that it is a project to annihilate certain political actors who are deemed to be undesirable.

If Trump was African, he would not be one in concluding that when one is a populist, the risk of being removed based on trumped up charges is real and high.

Continue Reading

Business

Brian and Mutumwa’s Chat Room Part 3 – The Constitutionality of The Reconstruction Act and Specification Measures in the SMM Saga

Brian Tawanda Manyati

Published

on

Brian and Mutumwa`s Chat Room is a zwnews24 column on an interview series between businessman Mutumwa Mawere and 1873 Radio`s Brian Tawanda Manyati (BTM) under the Connections2Communities (C2C) Conversations. 

In these interviews, Brian and Mutumwa talk about various issues that happen across the spectrum of human life in order to raise community awareness and participation towards societal development. 

This third episode touches on Presidential Powers as well as Specification and Reconstruction Orders with intention to analyze and assess the impact thereof on the socio-economic environment, with the ZIMRE judgment still being our case study.

BTM: Mr Mawere, welcome to today’s episode of the Brian and Mutumwa’s Chatroom. Would you please shed more light on the constitutional rights of THZ in relation to its property being the shares held in UKI and ENDURITE and the rights of ZIMRE in relation to SMM? 

Mutumwa Mawere: “It was SMM that was placed under extrajudicial reconstruction and not ZIMRE since ZIMRE was a separate legal persona with its own creditors and shareholders. Zimre was commanded into reconstruction without its knowledge and consent.”

The role of the Investigator was to protect the property of the specified and yet the intent was to use the rights issue to dilute and compromise the control of ZIMRE by THZ’s 2 subsidiaries. 

The question is on whether a specification order can be used to enable the divestment of assets and deprivation of property rights. If one follows the facts of this case, is it easy to arrive at a conclusion that the Court was used to undermine the rule of law?

BTM: Section No. 3 of the old Constitution had the following areas for consideration:

# Protection from deprivation of property – No property of any kind can be compulsorily acquired or taken away except under the authority of the law.

# Protection of the law – every person is entitled of the law, e.g. if charged with a criminal offense; he or she should be given fair trial within a reasonable time by an independent and unbiased court, open to the public.

From your understanding, which section was used in the ZIMRE case?

Mutumwa Mawere: As regards the ZIMRE judgment, we should be asking what the role of Mawere was in the court proceedings before Judge Makarau. How can a judge dismiss an application that is before the Court simply on account of the status of a witness? 

BTM: What the judge did was tantamount to lifting the corporate veil and there was no corporate fraud against anyone under the circumstances of the ZIMRE case to have warranted lifting of a veil of THZ to the extent of attaching a witness to its matters.

Mutumwa Mawere: Did the judge make any observation on corporate veil or she erroneously believed that a deponent can create and disqualify authority? Was there a dispute before requiring an inquiry into the corporate veil issue?

BTM: I am exposing the actual thing she did, albeit incorrectly.

Mutumwa Mawere: Do you agree that the learned Judge erred in not having regard to the fact that it was THZH’s litigation that was before her and it was irrelevant as to who deposed to the affidavit in support of THZH’s application? What does equal justice under law mean to you? If Makarau did not honor this promise, do you on reflection think she is fit to be a judge?

Mutumwa Mawere: What does equal justice mean?

BTM: Indiscrimination e.g. non-discrimination of a specified person.

Mutumwa Mawere: I mean generally. Equal justice is usually taken to mean equal access to justice, which in turn is taken to mean access to law. But as is frequently noted, a purely procedural understanding by no means captures our aspirations and for a reason those who receive their “day in court” do not always feel that “justice has been done. Her reading of the law in relation to specification is what she relied upon to conclude as you do?

BTM: In my view, even though you were specified, you were not part of the dispute, but THZ though not so specified, she sought to use it still to barricade you from even testifying, and that was harsh on her part.

Mutumwa Mawere: Is this not a separate matter dealing with the limitations imposed on a specified person? Do you agree that the circumference of what a specified person can do or not is a subject matter that has yet to be sufficiently tested for a shared understanding to be established?

BTM: Yes. A company has separate legal persona from the natural person as per Salomon versus Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), however, the action of looking into the company to identify its owner/s is known as “piercing or lifting the corporate veil” as per the cases of Daimler Company Ltd v Continental Tyre Co (1916) or Gumede v Bandhla Vukani Bakiti (1950). Fraud cases often cause lifting of corporate veil to apply especially where corrupt shareowners or senior executives or owner managers operate under the guise of a company which they earmark for winding up in order to avoid heavy fines (such as the penalty of gaol) should their crimes land them in court (out of knowing the company cannot go to gaol).

Mutumwa Mawere: There was no dispute of fraud before Makarau as far as I know. Mawere was not a party to the proceedings. He was authorized by an aggrieved party. None of the companies in the cause were accused of fraud in this specific matter.

BTM: Yes the aggrieved party THZ gave permission to Mawere to be a witness. THZ wasn’t specified. It wasn’t under the investigator. Only Mawere was under the investigator’s ambit, albeit under a separate matter with nothing to do with Zimre. So I am trying as much to find out how strong or weak would be the thinking that THZ must have authorized Mawere through the investigator, or that Mawere himself for knowing he is under an investigator must have gone to the investigator and said THZ wants me witnessing do you permit it, or anything else along those lines? Help me to be full proof with just this part.

Mutumwa Mawere: The facts are as what they are. The judge was confronted with a case of whether to recognize the authority of an administrator to interpose himself in the affairs of separate juristic entities especially where constitutional and property rights were involved. Did she discharge this duty of defending rights? 

BTM: When asked to quantify, I am 90% towards saying No, she did not speculate. The question is on finding out how she reached that position and testing the strength or weakness of the pathway she used to getting to that.

Mutumwa Mawere: Why speculate when the primary basis is explained? According to her a specified person enjoys qualified rights even as a witness.

BTM: The judge says “if I have made an error I have another basis, we need to then give close scrutiny to that basis she only is fully or assuredly relying on it in coming to her ruling.

Mutumwa Mawere: We can only rely on what she converted into writing and not what could have been in her mind.

BTM: I thought that too, may be I went a bit further, that does it have to be stated in black and white or it has to be applied as a matter of a principle of law simply? It is why I started today with wanting to read cases where this principle of veil uncovering was used on my own.

Mutumwa Mawere: If you want to create a new dispute, then you can no longer rely on the judgment. The court was approached by parties to a dispute and that dispute was provoked and triggered by ZIMRE in proposing a rights issue and giving its directors powers to allocate shares without shareholders being given the opportunity to exercise their rights over this action that could have the effect of unfettered discretionary power being given to directors. 

BTM: No I do not want to create a new dispute. I am still dwelling on the ZIMRE judgment. 

Mutumwa Mawere: The issue was about the control of ZIMRE that was now a subject of conspiracy between the management of the company and the government whose actors had created a series of events to prevent any legal resistance to the corrupt scheme to take control via a purported rights offer.

BTM: This I located using the judgment yes. If you remember when I said “The second resolution of the ZIMRE EGM as read from the judgment sought to make a renounceable rights offer which would result in unissued shares controlled by the directors for an indefinite period.”

I went on to ask, “Was it, in your view, so as to create a vacuum for creation of a shareholder later on, thus diluting control later on?”

And stated that, “If yes one of the proxies of the two associate companies, which is you, whose vote against was acknowledged while that of Mr. De Bourbon was rejected, noticed this loophole and hence you wanted your proxy vote standing against such potentially calculated dilution (only borrowing a term from financial reporting it may stand akin to “aggressive accounting” whatever was being done, whereby citable laws/principles/rules/standards are used yes, but in a creative/evasion sense that the prudent/compliance sense). 

The above said, however, the other proxy representing the associate entities Endurite and UKI as appointed by the directors of the associate entities and per investigator’s approval may genuinely have not picked out this loophole or were in a deliberate ploy against their parent’s (THZ’s) stake or they acted the manner they did as part of seeking return favors from government (in the sense that since given both of them had been deemed as specified and could only do things through the investigator which on its own is a potential case of undue influence/duress), they so voted for the resolution and not in line with their parent. 

The judge too may have not picked the ‘statecraft’ but in using the umbrella of the specification order, picked a procedural wrong on your part thus the lack of locus standi based ruling reached in the ZIMRE judgment.”

Mutumwa Mawere: Therefore, the question would be whether the judge was blind to the scheme whose effect was to undermine the rights that the constitution compelled her to protect and defend. The idea is to focus on the key issues arising from what was before the Court and whether the promise of justice was met.

BTM: Furthermore, kindly note that below are 3 questions merged. In the case of Brown v British Abrassive Wheel Company (1919) on alteration of articles of association, the company needed additional finance and the majority shareholders holding 98% of capital were prepared to provide this if they could buy out the 2% minority. The minority refused to sell. The articles were then altered to give the majority shareholders the right to buy the 2% shares. It was held that such alteration was not for the benefit of the company. It amounted to oppression of the minority. What have you to say Mr. Mawere on the above case in relation to the ZIMRE judgment?

Am I observing right that in the ZIMRE judgment what the judge may have not noticed was a crafty intention to place renounceable rights in the hands of the directors for an indefinite period of time, but potentially this could lead to alteration of control of ZIMRE, creation of a swayed majority later, and lead to an effective buy out of a minority created from what was the associate stake of Endurite and UKI at first? Or simply to create a case of an Endurite and UKI which will now be a toothless bulldog say from having their stake altered from state of significant influence (associate status) to a simple interest. With this above also what becomes of interest is what has become of ZIMRE to date post the ZIMRE judgment of 2005, shareholder ship wise. May we benefit using hindsight?

Mutumwa Mawere: There is no suggestion that ZIMRE needed capital and this issue was not before the Court. The issue if it existed would have been known to UKI and Endurite. The significant shareholders of the company were deliberately left out of the loop and the case you refer to bears no resemblance to the true facts of the ZIMRE case. The judge was supposed to look at the facts and the law. The issue that the judge ought to have looked at is whether the Minister should have had the cake and eat it. He specified UKI, Endurite, SMM, and myself and in doing so became a gatekeeper to these parties from seeking the benefit of using the courts to defend their constitutional rights. The resolutions were passed and implemented resulting in the government’s nominees buying the shares placed under the control of ZIMRE directors.

BTM: According to our insolvency law, as governed by the Insolvency Act 06:04, insolvency in general occurs in two ways: first a debtor overweighed by his or her debt and cautiously pestered by his or her creditors recognizes that his or her position is precarious and voluntarily surrenders his or her own estate for the benefit of the creditors; and second, by way of compulsory sequestration whereby the creditors make a court application to have the debtor ordered as insolvent or taken to have committed an act of insolvency. Usually when he or she leaves the country or being out of the country or remains absent with intent to evade or delay the payment of debt. Is any of this particularly relevant to the matters of SMM kindly?

Critical to this is the Insolvency Act which seeks to rehabilitate, because the Insolvency estate remains in the hands of the trustee (basically the investigator in SMM’s case) until rehabilitation. The State clearly created something outside the law with the Presidential Powers regulations of 2004 used to place SMM on reconstruction and later went on to the courts in Nov 2005 to get that act graced at law now. A single creditor for SMM was created name the State, hence the use of phrase “State indebtedness”. Effectively a compulsory sequestration of SMM was sought by a solo creditor namely “the State” in a procedure more or less similar to that the Insolvency Act provides for, but in SMM’s case the Presidential Powers regulations remains an order coming from outside the confines of the law including the Insolvency Act itself. 

Because of this anomaly, I am failing to find how a compulsory reconstruction order as was created, alters the duties of a specified person (the insolvent person now officially declared so using a regulation as of 2004 created outside the law), duties which by and large are similar to duties of an insolvent person during sequestration? What was really going on?

Mutumwa Mawere: There is no comparison between the Insolvency Act and the Reconstruction Act. The Reconstruction Act presumes that a company is divisible into state indebted and Insolvent class and the rest that are not when a company is a company irrespective of who it is indebted to. The equality before the law doctrine precludes any creditor being a special one like the state. The constitution is founded on the doctrine of separation of powers that precludes the executive to assume powers reserved for the courts in the case of Insolvency. It is the court in the event of a dispute that has inherent jurisdiction to determine the existence of indebtedness between equal debtor/creditor parties. It is only when the indebtedness is established that the quantum can be ascertained by the court before insolvency can be tested and established. A creditor is barred from unilaterally establishing indebtedness, quantum and insolvency.

BTM: Furthermore, the duties of an insolvent person during sequestration cause all property he or she acquires to remain in the insolvent estate. He or she can enter into valid contracts but an appointed trustee (admin/investigator) can opt out if transaction prejudices the insolvent. He or she may also follow any profession or occupation or enter into employment contracts and may be sued or sue in his or her own rights, etc. Somehow, this Insolvency law is enforcing the insolvent person’s rights, and so, how come the Presidential Powers regulations of 2004 that the Minister used to allege the Insolvency claim and subsequently unleash a reconstruction order immediately, are more like usurping all the duties (effectively rights) a specified person has during reconstruction (sequestration)?

Is it the case that someone is was trying to implement the second way of coming up with insolvency, however, wrongly? That is, by way of compulsory sequestration whereby the creditors make a court application (but here State as a Solo creditor) would have the debtor ordered as insolvent or taken to have committed an act of insolvency as is usually the case when he or she leaves the country or being out of the country, or remains absent with intent to evade or delay the payment of his or her debt? Did the in the ZIMRE judgment the judge put all these things to test before coming to the position of the specified individual being improperly placed before the court?

Mutumwa Mawere: There should be no confusion as to whether insolvency is akin to reconstruction. Why would anyone have authored the Reconstruction Act if another remedy existed to achieve an intended end? The desired end could not be achieved without inventing new facts and circumstances. Specification was intended to cripple an aggrieved person from challenging the intended expropriation without compensation scheme. They knew or ought to have known that their actions would be challenged and so they preempted this by amputating any potential aggrieved parties. There was never an insolvency claim as you allege. The state was never a creditor of SMM to give it locus to benefit from the provisions of the Companies and Insolvency Act.

BTM: Is this the correct sequence of events to you, that in the ZIMRE judgment the judge threw away the key, the judge who is a person not necessarily the judiciary, threw away the keys, following an extra judicial specification that the judge placed reliance on, and that specification order turned out to in actual fact to be an asset freezing order that sought not to protect your rights as an insolvent/specified person as declared. That it turned out to be something else, what else did it turn out to be in your own view? Is it that it sought in actual fact to disarm you while the State dealt with your assets, while persons attached to it willy-nilly dealt a blow to your rights?

Mutumwa Mawere: The question is whether the Bill of Rights can be tempered by administrative measures involving a government official issuing an order that has the effect of divesting and depriving a person of rights including access to courts and being informed prior to any adverse order? SMM was never insolvent. Not sure where you are getting this notion. Just take the facts as they are than speculate.

Brian Tawanda Manyati is a Chartered Governor and an Accounting Technician. 

Contacts: LinkedIn – briantawandamanyati

Email – tawandamanyati@gmail.com

To register for C2C Mentorship on Corporate Literacy and Judicial Reform programs, you pay an annual fee of USD36 using the link https://zonfulenergy.com/membership/

Continue Reading

Columnists

The Transformation of My Life through “Own A Radio Station4R500,” – What I Learned From Mutumwa Mawere

Brian Tawanda Manyati

Published

on

When I joined “Own A Radio Station4R500,” WhatsApp group, I didn’t know that there was so much more to gain until I started to personally and directly engage in conversations with businessman and mentor, Mr Mutumwa Mawere.

Prior to my engagement with this group, I can acknowledge that I had been already following Mutumwa Mawere on various social media platforms because I was always intrigued by the content and context of the message that he shared. 

I was an avid reader of his columns on the NewZimbabwe, Daily News and the Newsday online platforms and sometimes, together with my friend, we would read court cases on him in the High Court of South Africa. 

As we tracked him down we came across and highlighted one South African court case with the following remarks about him: 

“any misgivings that one may have had about the first defendant, a Zimbabwean who has become a South African citizen through naturalization, and who now lives in Sandton, being disadvantaged by not having legal representation were soon dispelled. 

Legal jargon trilled from his lips as though he had been born in a court house and had well known legal textbooks and law reports read to him as lullabies. He clearly is no stranger to litigation, demonstrating familiarity with court procedures. 

He cross examined witnesses with poise and confidence which many a ‘baby, blue-bag’ junior at the Bar would envy. He even had the temerity to suggest, at one stage, that I was treating him ‘like a nigger, like a Kaffir’…”

As for me, honestly speaking, sometimes, I would not understand his thinking in expression especially his tweets that require much depth and breadth in order for you to fully understand even though I have been a beneficiary of his numerous threads and audios of conversations with other people. 

Despite the lessons that I learnt, I was at first disturbed by the fact that he shared audio and text messages that he had with different people because I thought this was offensive until he made me to understand and I then changed my mind about it.

I remember that I once inboxed him believing that my conversation would be private and confidential but surprisingly, I discovered that it was shared in many groups and yet I naturally believed that I was special and deserved to be treated with respect. 

My first objections about his broadcasting of what I believed to private conversations were a result of the fact that I had no idea that there was a lesson inherent in his decision to share what I regarded as private and confidential in the public domain without my knowledge and consent. 

I then thought to myself that if what he did was wrong, it means that I was equally guilty for such behavior as well since I had also on several occasions shared conversations that I would have had with others from one group into several other groups.

From my perspective, I was I thought I was justified because I had convinced myself that I was forwarding these messages to others as an attempt to help them gain rich insights from others in groups that they were not members, and yet naively thought it was a breach of trust and confidentiality when it was done by Mutumwa Mawere. 

In my own worldview, although I had no reason to justly claim any privilege in relation to him, I felt and believed that getting some mentorship from him would greatly help me because of his deep insights on various critical without taking into consideration the time and effort involved on his part to directly and personally respond to me on a daily basis. 

As I continued being part of the WhatsApp groups where he participated, I saw that by sharing his conversations, he actually broadcasted valuable answers to many others who would also benefit from the answers that he gave to people in one group without needing to repeat himself.

It dawned on me that the whole idea of converting Connections to Communities (C2C) could be accelerated and optimized when conversations are shared because knowledge that is shared has the power to provoke new ideas and actions. 

Now, let me indulge you on my mentorship under Mutumwa Mawere.

I have always thought that a one-on-one interface with a person I look up to is the best form of accelerating my personal advancement but he managed to shift my mindset on that issue when I reflected on the conversations he had with Ms Janet Madaka who is a fellow member of C2C. 

The issue that was being discussed centered the form and substance of a mentorship programme that we are promoting in building community power to solve problems.

To me, the notion that we are all created equal did not make sense until Mutumwa Mawere responded to Ms Madaka who felt that in the C2C community, a person like Mutumwa should naturally take the lead a wholesale mentorship program involving a target of a minimum of 100 mentees to a mentor. 

Mutumwa Mawere said that he is just one in many and the program would benefit if a shared understanding could be developed on what wholesale versus retail mentorship truly means. 

According to Mutumwa Mawere, the purpose of building communities is actually to better organize the distribution of knowledge so that a person does not have to repeat answering the same question over 100 times when the digital age has allowed 100 people to come together and talk to a single person they look up to. 

When he said that, I then realized that this was the justification of initiatives such as the Own A Radio Station4R500 since in its traditional form, a radio station was meant to provide a platform to educate, inform and entertain a wider audience. 

The role of the media in raising awareness and consciousness cannot never be understated because media platforms such as radio stations that broadcast through WhatsApp can help shape and define issues and provoke action without the presenters leaving or going to a studio setting. 

With respect to mentorship, I can testify that in following Mutumwa Mawere, I have been a beneficiary of knowledge that I would have paid dearly to access. 

I have come to know that it is easy to be selfish when we look at time and value without considering that a mentor or person that others may want to learn from has to give up his time in order for him to be relevant and useful to others.

As such, in order to promote knowledge sharing and facilitate effective mentorship, initiatives like the Connections2Communities must be embraced since they make the process more efficient and effective than to steal a mentor’s time and value for no commensurate benefit to him or her.

Please go through the conversations below which was extracted from a WhatsApp conversation between Mutumwa Mawere and Tichareva so that you can appreciate the picture of civilized engagement that is witnessed when people interact while they consider themselves to be equal.

[10/16, 10:31 PM] Tichareva: Mutumwa Mawere has great passion! I salute you Mukoma!!!!

[10/16, 10:31 PM] Tichareva: I must be honest, I have not yet paid my R500!!! I must do it soon!!!!! 

[10/16, 10:32 PM] Tichareva: I am convinced that this thing needs to be supported!!!’

[10/16, 11:05 PM] Tichareva: You are dealing with societal issues and that are very important! It is the only way towards human development beyond the formal education system Mukoma Mutumwa Mawere

[10/16, 11:05 PM] Mutumwa Mawere: Thanks

[10/16, 11:12 PM] Tichareva: Indeed Mukoma Mutumwa Mawere, I listen to most of your audios! I miss a lot of them too!!!I listen because I want to understand what and how people are thinking. That’s how I grow! I simply criticize them and then take the good!!! Sometimes I don’t even know what’s good or bad until you get engaged in detail on these issues! That’s what we call society development!!!

[10/16, 11:14 PM] Mutumwa Mawere: We all are privileged to have the gift to speak and some fail to use and die with nothing downloaded.

[10/16, 11:16 PM] Tichareva: Indeed! Hence we must speak!!! What we need is an objective and incentive for the average to speak! The incentive is very simple – think about what your speaking will do to community development!!!

To subscribe for mentorship pay an annual fee of USD36 using https://zonfulenergy.com/membership/

Brian Tawanda Manyati is a Chartered Governor and an Accounting Technician. 

LinkedIn: briantawandamanyati

Email: tawandamanyati@gmail.com

Phone number: +263772815211

Continue Reading

Trending