Connect with us


The Power of Civic Literacy and Mentorship on Community Development – Connections to Communities (C2C)

Brian Tawanda Manyati



Every individual on earth has a role to play in making this world a better place for its inhabitants, but unfortunately, many people do not participate in finding solutions to issues that affect their communities, and thus they unconsciously surrender their fate into the hands of others.

The main reason that cause people to fail to get involved in discussing and implementing ideas that can transform their communities is the lack of knowledge on civic issues plus a deficiency in role models and mentors that can inspire community engagement that is of mutual benefit.

As such, on that note, Connections2Communities (C2C) under the 1873 Network regularly comes up with discussions and programs that touch on real-life issues so that people across the board can be open-minded and be informed in their daily interactions and pursuit of their dreams.

C2C is member-driven initiative which seeks to raise awareness on the urgency and need to be active citizens on any aspect of human life through working together than individually in building community power towards solving problems that are faced from time to time. 

It is a platform that accommodates people from all walks of lives regardless of their backgrounds and social standing since we believe that diversity is the DNA of initiative and creativity.

More-so, we are convinced that it is everyone’s responsibility to define and shape issues that help in efficient problem solving and that is why seek to ensure that our connections are utilized for the common good of our communities.

Two of the main vehicles adopted by the 1873 Network towards the achievement of this noble objective of attaining a better world for all is civic literacy initiatives and mentorship programs.

In basic terms, Civic Literacy means having the knowledge and skills that you need in order to participate towards making a positive change in your community.

For example, in Canada, this includes knowledge on voting as well as an understanding on how the government works plus insights on the rights and responsibilities of citizens and elected members of government.

When you have strong civic literacy skills, you know how to make your voice heard by all levels of people in the government, be it before, during and after an election. 

We know that public Sector and Electoral Reforms are some of the subjects that people must be conversant on especially when we talk about civic literacy and that is why the 1873FM radio had programs concentrating on Judicial Reforms using the ZIMRE Judgement of 2005. 

Community development in any society is mainly a result of individual and collective participation and responsibility since every person in a given place has a role to play in the positive transformation of society.

If the majority of people in a community would rather choose to be eloquent in their silence by remaining aloof on issues that affect them directly, they will continue to be burdened by crisis after crisis which will erode their dignity and undermine their worthy on the face of this planet.

A divided society in which some citizens think that the obligation of a better community is someone else’s responsibility usually succumbs to chaos and poverty but if people come together and contribute their ideas on issues that affect them, they are likely to prosper and live in peace.

All too often, although we live in communities, it is the case that as individuals we keep problems to ourselves until things get worse, but however, when people connect and share ideas, it becomes easier for them to broaden and deepen the space of problem solving. 

In the course of our civic literacy and mentorship programs, we usually and deliberately use case studies so that members can understand the subject better and relate with the issues in a practical way.

At present we are looking at the interplay and intersection between the rule of law and prosperity as well as the power of literacy on corporate matters in helping bridge the divide. 

In this regard, Mr Mutumwa Mawere, a member of the C2C initiative has agreed to share his experiences as part of provoking, igniting and inspiring others to document their stories.

Having touched on civic literacy and highlighted its relevance and importance, it is now necessary to shed light on why we engage in mentorship programs and reflect on the approaches that we adopt.

It is a fact that in life, knowledge, ideas, insights and experiences may not be same among ourselves in our various communities since we may find that there are people with rich and vast experiences that if shared, hold the promise to inspire others. 

This is because of the fact that people from all walks of lives have been through some experiences that when shared in an organized way, such may help to touch and transform many souls since story telling is one of the bridge builders and a driver of positive thinking.

In C2C, we usually adopt the wholesale mentorship approach as compared to the retail one which often involves one-to-one interfaces between a mentee and a mentor.

Wholesale involves a community-centric mentorship where a mentor is shared by a group of mentees. 

As C2C members, we believe that when we can come together in this way by making use of technological advancements, i.e., remote engagements in order to better organize mentorship programs that can optimize on the use of scarce time available to our mentors. 


It Was a Business Transaction with Ginimbi- says Mutumwa Mawere

Own Correspondent



BY CONNIE V, NOV 9, 2020:

In December 2018, Mutumwa Mawere was quoted by iHarare saying, “I paid R340,000 for gas which gas was supplied to his company, Pioneer Gas and delivered to Zimbabwe and sold. After selling, the profit was supposed to be shared with the principal being used to buy new gas. Little did I know I was converted into a bank. He then said it was a loan without security and paid a bit.” Mawere alleges.

These are the same words he said to me this morning as we discussed the money that he is owed by the late fellow businessman, Genius Kadungure aka Ginimbi.

Apparently, in 2018, Ginimbi tweeted, ‘Good morning ‘ and Mawere grabbed the opportunity to ask for his money back, “Please can you pay what you owe. I am not the govt of Zimbabwe. My patience is running out.” he replied to Ginimbi’s tweet. It is alleged that Ginimbi then deleted his Twitter account shortly after that.

In this morning’s interview, Mawere stated that it was a business transaction that Ginimbi was simply supposed to honour while he was alive, now that he is late, it is now in the past and the past should be buried with Ginimbi.

Mawere says that he is not bitter but, obviously, this will affect any further businesses he might have in the future.

“Suppose a young man will approach me in the future and ask me to assist him in his tomato selling business. How do you think my response will be? It could be, I will pay the supplier, after selling, you can pay me from your profits and also use the money to buy new stock for sale. But, it just might be something totally different.”

The Ginimbi-Mawere money story is nothing new, but what lesson can we draw from it? How is it possible that a man with Ginimbi’s wealth, the flamboyant life he lived, the glamorous US$12m mansion and fast luxurious cars failed to pay a R340 000 debt?

In Shona we say, ‘yafa yakaloader’…. May his soul rest in peace.

This article first appeared on Afriquebeat published by Connie V:

Continue Reading


The Economic Sanctions and Corruption Fight: A Quick Summary on Some Points from the Recent Connections2Communities (C2C) Conversations

Brian Tawanda Manyati



Zimbabwe recently commemorated what it termed the Anti-Sanctions Day on the 25th of October, 2020 and it was joined by a number of African countries but the day that followed was full of drama in many angles.

On the 26th of October, 2020, news platforms were awash with pictures of Scott Sakupwanya, a Zimbabwean based gold trader with huge sums of money and gold bars which made many commentators to associate such money and the gold with illicit deals.

This was also quickly followed by another gold related scandal involving Henrietta Rushwaya who is alleged to have tried to smuggle the precious mineral through the Robert Gabriel Mugabe International Airport.

These developments caused and worsened the debate on whether Zimbabwe’s economic problems resulted from economic sanctions or corruption?

The American Embassy and others attributed the situation to corruption while China and others blamed sanctions on the same matter.

Using the Connections2Communities (C2C) platform, I sought to find out more on these two economic evils that were being discussed and this led to the following summarized points as shared by many Zimbabweans across the board:

1. Many people in Zimbabwe attend to the issue of economic sanctions and corruption in a partisan way.

2. As regards Scott Sakupwanya’s licensed gold buying and selling case, some people asked if it is legal in Zimbabwe for people to hoard or stash huge amounts of cash in their homes, and if that is not, then what is it that is creating a parallel economy with its own currency exchange rates.

3. Some people believe that there is rampant attempts of blackmail that are inspired by the need to settle political scores as Scott Sakupwanya said in response to press enquiries. He attributed the mishap to his stolen phone from which images were extracted and used as evidence of some illicit gold trade going on in Zimbabwe.

In whichever way, blackmail and corruption are both vices that must not be tolerated in society because they tend to create more problems than those that the perpetrators thereof seek to solve.

4. There was also a widespread view that the inconsistent government policies of the ruling political party was also to blame for the economic problems in the country.

5. It was also noted that mining, just like agriculture, is a cornerstone of our economy and as such, the government should not subcontract the institutions that drive these two but should rather effectively manage them for the good of the nation.

This can be done through curbing corruption, avoiding side marketing and closing porous avenues such as smuggling and externalization which divert revenues.

6. People recommended that as a nation, we should have the right national attitude which make sure that economic sanctions will not be able to cloud the national good. If we collectively do the right things, we can minimize the sanctions shock. The pervasive nature of corruption and absence of national interest across the Zimbabwean society is killing the economy.

7. The standoff between countries like the USA and China regarding sanctions in Zimbabwe creates a balance by removing extreme isolation and this can mean that since China is an economic powerhouse, trade with it can offset the deficit and absorb the sanctions shock.

8. There was a general call for a shared understanding on what must be regarded as issues of national interest among all stakeholders in order to deal with and avoid political interference especially where issues of corruption are identified as is the case with local governance and government officials. The media was encouraged to avoid being partisan in its reporting.

9. People voiced concern on the prices that the government pays for goods and services in its procurements since most of these prices are inflated way above the market rates and no one cares because such prices are designed to cater for kickbacks.

If we factor in the size of our economy, it means we are losing big time as a country since the this results in projects that never seem to end yet the quality of is work compromised. Surely our ruling party is aware.

10. Sanctions against Zimbabwe by western governments was caused by patent behavior of national leadership that was based on weak social systems, i.e lack of checks and balances which could have been avoided had our governance system matured earlier.

11. Other contributors to the discourse felt that the corruption narrative is a paid or sponsored mantra designed to erase the economic sanctions argument. A general shared sentiment was that if we are a responsible people, we would act accordingly and correct the challenges at hand that the imposers of economic sanctions argue are the reasons.

The above views are a summary of my discourse with others on economic sanctions and corruption.

However, my personal view on economic sanctions against Zimbabwe is that they must be lifted since they were unilaterally imposed by the USA and its allies as a result of the land reform exercise.

I believe that sanctions have a tendency and the capacity to increase the levels of corruption in a country and so their consequences can far outweigh what they seek to achieve.

As for corruption, I believe that it be formidably resolved while not pretending as if sanctions are also something that need urgent attention.

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

Contacts:         LinkedIn – briantawandamanyati

Email –

Continue Reading


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

Brian Tawanda Manyati



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 –

To register for C2C Mentorship on Corporate Literacy and Judicial Reform programs, you pay an annual fee of USD36 using the link

Continue Reading