Bennett’s trial: Mutsetse goes Zigzag

The State's expert IT witness whose name Mutsetse means straight line went on a zigzag in court under cross examination about his expertise in the ongoing criminal political persecution of MDC Treasurer General Roy Bennet

When Justice Chinembiri Bhunu presiding over the terrorism and insurgency trial of MDC-T treasurer Roy Bennett ruled that the State could rely on highly unsafe e-mails evidence to put the accused on his defense, we opined that the ruling had hanged the AG in the open to dry.

Obviously Attorney General Johannes Tomana has limited if not nonexistent knowledge about technology behind transmission and receipt of e-mails.

If he had an expected general idea or the humility to seek advice from genuine IT experts other than those in the CIO who were offered jobs on political patronage considerations he would not have called Mr. Perekayi Denshad Mutsetse to testify as an IT expert in a matter that carries the capital punishment of death should the accused be convicted.

During interviews with Mr. Mutsetse the AG would have established that Mr. Mutsetse was an IT expert impostor not worthy of his trust in a high stakes trial like the Bennett trial.

But because an ignorant AG was compelled to authenticate disputed IT evidence he unwittingly believes forms the basis of the State case against the accused he had to find an expert to testify in the matter without knowing the specifications of the type of expertise required.

It turned out that he banked his trust in an under qualified IT ignoramus Perekayi Denshad Mutsetse who has done the frivolous and vexatious State persecution case more harm than good and must have left Justice Chinembiri Bhunu aghast in confusion.

After ruling against the use of the AG’s name on fake but illustrative cross examination e-mails created by the defense to show that anyone anywhere could create e-mail communication in another person’s name –which was rather odd as the defense wanted to drive home the point that not even the AG was immune to that kind of impersonation, the streetwise defense team was not unduly daunted as it went on to produce other fake e-mails with equally devastating and embarrassing effect on the shaky state case.

If there was any doubt over the averments of the defense that e-mails were an unsafe source of evidence upon which the case must proceed, the court must by now be better informed as to why the defense holds that contention and its legitimacy.

Africom Mutare’s Mr. Perekayi Denshad Mutsetse called upon by the state to testify as a computer network expert witness made a complete fool of himself in the witness stand when he in his now questionable expertise told the court that it was not possible for one to access another person’s e-mail without a password.

Any computer technology expert worth of recognition as such would know that it is possible to hack into other computers and or view any information on another computer without a password.

There are world acclaimed cases where computer hackers have broken into sophisticated national networks of the USA’s NASA computer network and downloaded classified national security information that any person purporting expertise in computer networking should be at the very least expected to be familiar with.

Closer to home the government has legislated to pry into private communication through the Information Communication Interception Act that the CIO uses to monitor communications between unsuspecting members of the public in its generality and being a networking expert Mutsetse should have known that his assertion that e-mails cannot be accessed without a password was blatantly false and unsustainable.

Now that he has falsely declared that it’s not possible from his diminished expertise the court must weigh his credibility as an expert when he further asserted that the e-mail printouts between Hitschmann and Bennett were genuine without even having examined the source computer from which they were obtained and sent.

No wonder lead defense counsel Ms Beatrice Mtetwa had a field day with the pseudo IT expert called upon by the State to authenticate its dubious evidence against the accused.

First she produced copies of his Network Essentials attained in December 2000 from the Secretarial Skills Development Centre in Harare and another one for Microcomputer Technology (City and Guilds Certificate) attained in 2002 which were not disputed.

Then she produced damming evidence that the so called expert State witness had in fact been employed by TelOne between 1996 and 1999 as a General Hand and not as a Technician as he had claimed.

She adduced evidence of the Witness’ CV showing he had failed his “O” Levels and an organogram of Africom showing that the State’s expert witness occupied a lowly position in the organization that is not commensurate with his claim to IT expertise.

The organogram showed that the witness was not employed as a Provincial Engineer, a position that does not exist at Africom but rather as a mere Technician.

She further accused the so called expert witness of attempting to mislead the court about his level of expertise by claiming to have been certified by the University of Zimbabwe and Africa University falsely and without evidence of such certification.

On the evidence of the State expert witness that evidence of hard copy e-mail correspondence he was shown by the Police was genuine and authentic correspondence that took place between Hitschmann and Bennett the defense printed fake evidence of e-mails it had created in the witness’ name and he authenticated them as genuine.

When his mistake became apparent he could not hold his composure and threw tantrums
that earned him several cautions from the presiding Judge to remain focused and answer the questions from the defense counsel.

But the expert witness had been so torn apart that he made some startling and damaging revelations about himself.

He admitted he had absolutely no knowledge about e-mail and computer forensic examinations to establish e-mail correspondence authenticity which he believed could only be carried in South Africa and other unspecified countries.

He further categorically stated that in Zimbabwe there were no computer hackers when the entire nation knows that the CIO can legally hack into any private correspondence.

And his assertion that even though he had authenticated a fake e-mail produced by the defense he was not mistaken about the Hitschmann and Bennett correspondence authenticity because nobody could backdate e-mail correspondence became a source of huge embarrassment for the State case when the defense quickly produced another backdated e-mail for his perusal.

A distraught Mutsetse failed to dismiss evidence of his low level employment capacity within Africom pleading breach of company secrecy if he did so which is completely outrageous.

On his lowly qualifications he could only claim that in other countries which he did not specify his qualifications were equivalent to a degree.

He then changed his claim that he had worked for TelOne as a technician between 1996 and 1999 to having worked for the same company as a technician for four years on a contract basis.

If the AG had known about all these deficiencies in Mr. Mutsetse’s expertise or more appropriately if the AG was himself computer literate he would not have entrusted the State case in the hands of such an incompetent “expert”.

Simply put Mr. Mutsetse is under qualified for the task he was brought to court to clarify and his evidence has all but left the court in the dilemma of determining a crucial matter on the basis of evidence the authenticity of which is in doubt.

An IT expert who claims in court that “information technology forensics was not done here in Zimbabwe adding that maybe it existed in South Africa and other countries,” as did the witness is not worth paying attention to and worse when his claims to qualifications and experience are proven to be fallacious to the extent they were in this matter.

The trial will obviously continue but as we said it is doing the credibility of the AG serious harm he could have been sparred when it became apparent that the case was formulated on evidence extracted through torture.

The acquittal of the Chinotimba mobile thief Thamsanga Mahlangu

Deputy Minister of youth Development Hon Thamsanga Mahlangu. He is no Cellphone thief after all the court has ruled.

From the arrest and labeling of Premier Tsvangirai to Mahlangu it is all political-judicial persecution of political foes sanctioned by the octogenarian Sadc imposed on our country as President after he was vanquished in the March 2008 Presidential elections he staged and managed singlehandedly.

Premier Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Robert Mugabe in the March 2008 Presidential election and Mugabe has in his cynical ways admitted to that effect now that his tail is up after SADC aided him in restoring his legitimacy as President.

When negotiations for power sharing were stalling over Zanu PF hard-liners’ accusations that he had away too much power to the Premier the Sadc imposed President of Zimbabwe rebuked his critics by reminding them that Zanu PF lost elections to the MDC-T and was in a negotiating position only because of his initiative to reclaim the Presidency he had lost militantly.

Not a single one of the internal Zanu PF critics of the iron fisted party leader ever summoned the courage to respond to that admission because they knew that he their criticism had irked their “Supreme Leader” as they now regard him in Zanu PF.

They kept silent because they knew that Mugabe had told them that he did not need the election losers in his party ranks telling him what to do and what not to do as he had better reliable and more effective advisors from the military establishment that had guaranteed his retention of his Presidential Office even after admitting losing elections for the post to Morgan Tsvangirai by a massive 5% points in March 2008.

Instead the humiliated critics vented their bottled anger and desperation against the MDC-T in a desperate attempt to redeem themselves before their Supreme leader.

The Junta axis involving Didymus Mutasa, Patrick Chinamasa, Emmerson Mnangagwa, Nicholas Goche, Saviour Kasukuwere, George Charamba, Gideon Gono and the Military Commanders that Mugabe relies on for power retention strategies devised the judicial persecution strategy aimed at manufacturing crimes of insurgency, banditry and anything that would put the MDC-T and its Civil Society allies leadership into disrepute to strengthen Mugabe’s hand in the coalition government.

The most priced victims of that dirty political initiative were identified as the MDC-T Party President, elected MDC-T Legislators, Top MDC-T Activists, Advisors and Administrators.

Treason charges against MDC-T Secretary General Hon Tendai Biti now the coalition government’s Finance Minister were dropped while impending violent conduct trial of Advocate Eric Matinenga now Legal and Constitutional Affairs Minister was downgraded to a sideshow in order to facilitate the formation of the coalition government that was being stalled by these arrests and abductions of other MDC-T and sympathetic Civil Society activists.

The strategy was to create false confidence within the MDC that Zanu PF had succumbed and was willing to relinquish its hegemony on power over three decades when in effect the strategy was to allow MDC-T to recall its key functionaries strategically located outside the country who were keeping the international community appraised about developments in the country and ensuring the country remained a top agenda for discussion at every material international gathering.

Once inside the country the top externally based activists and MDC-T party functionaries would be easier to manage through the judicial persecution initiative it was reasoned.

That is why Roy Bennett is still facing the banditry and insurgency charges to ensure he does not have a chance in the world to leave the country and initiate programmes that will expose Zanu PF excesses in the coalition government.

Hebson Makuvise who was the Party’s key strategist in Europe has now been recalled and is awaiting posting as Ambassador to Germany but not before he was detained and thoroughly quizzed by State Security Agents for over 48 Hours on his arrival in Zimbabwe to attend the Premier’s inauguration and put under 24/7 surveillance.

One of the reasons why there has been limited movement in the posting of Ambassadors has been to delay Makuvise and other MDC aligned postings in countries that Zanu PF used to mislead through its Ambassadors.

Makuvise nearly missed qualification for consideration as an Ambassador as Registrar General Tobaiwa Mudede did everything to frustrate him getting back his Zimbabwean Passport as it had been discovered he had a UK Passport and thus had renounced his Zimbabwean citizenship by taking up dual citizenship.

Intelligence sources with insight to goings on in the Zanu PF wing of the coalition government but discontented with the direction the party wants the country to travel tipped Makuvise of the grand plan to disqualify him from Ambassadorial consideration and he swiftly reclaimed his Zimbabwean citizenship by renouncing the British Citizenship as provided by the Zimbabwe laws.

While he surprised the Registrar and his henchmen with the renunciation papers the Junta axis was thrilled that now they at least could keep Makuvise under leash as any international travel he intended was to be in terms of the Zimbabwe passport which was within their capacity to be withdrawn if need arises for such drastic action.

The same tactic was used to sanction Tsvangirai’s travel plans during negotiations to form the coalition regime and he was put on an emergency travel document plan to restrict him from travelling to Western nations Mugabe and Zanu PF blamed for sponsoring the MDC-T to achieve regime in Zimbabwe.

It was only when Tsvangirai boycotted further discussions with Mugabe and Zanu PF and holed himself in Botswana that SADC intervened and forced the Mugabe fronted Junta to issue the Premier the passport he deserved.

That forced compliance together with other decisions and undertakings by Sadc facilitated the return of Premier Tsvangirai and traction towards implementation of the GPA.

Within Zanu PF though, Tsvangirai was now a highly prized political trophy as they had completed the dossier that was to form the basis of his immediate arrest and detention if ever he and his party opted out of the GPA.

Yet many others in Zanu PF who felt the MDC-T’s entry into government would condemn them to the political dustbin were rooting for an MDC-T refusal to enter the government and create openings or them to be drafted in by President Mugabe.

Both camps were devastated when against all the odds stacked against the MDC-T its National Council resolved to participate in the coalition government.

The Junta strategy could no longer be applied to detain Tsvangirai who was the designated coalition Premier. In like manner the opportunities redundant Zanu PF aspirants were eyeing in government went up in smoke with the MDC-T National Council’s resolution to take up their positions in government.

It was at that juncture that it was resolved to frustrate the MDC-T involvement in government with a concerted judicial persecution initiative which saw over 45 activists and sympathizers abducted and detained incommunicado.

Then the idea was to cause Premier designate Morgan Tsvangirai to re-think his participation in government as he was being personally labeled as treasonous as Jonasi Savimbi,a tag Mutasa and Chinamasa still hold onto despite it having been invalidated by developments that followed the consummation of the government.

MDC-T MP’s were wantonly arrested between September 2008 and March 2009 at the same time Mugabe moved with lightning speed to appoint Provincial Governors, Senators,
The AG and RBZ Governor from within his party ranks to avoid imminent consultations with the Premier that would have been mandatory if appointments were made after affirmation of the Premier.

Little did his advisors realise or more accurately care that the appointments were against the spirit and letter of the GPA that had already been signed and was awaiting implementation.

By making the appointments Mugabe had created a conflict point in relations within the coalition government and the issues are now coming home to roost in the disengagement initiative by the MD-T.

Tendai Biti,(Harare East), Trevor Saruwaka (Mutasa Central), Lynnette Karenyi (Chimanimani West), Shuwa Mudiwa (Mutare West), Meki Makuyana (Chipinge South) and Mathias Mlambo MP for Chipinge East. the party’s treasurer Senator Roy Bennett Roy Bennett, Blessing Chebundo (Kwekwe Central), Eric Matinenga (Buhera North) MP, Reggie Moyo (Luveve ), Thamsanga Mahlangu (Nkulumane) Albert Mhlanga (Pumula) Ghandi Mudzingwa (Premier’s Office), Kisimusi Chris Dhlamini (Director of Security) together with another 40 party activists have been arrested on charges related to violation of National Security, Treason, Banditry, Rape, Electoral Fraud, banditry, insurgency and theft of arms and cell phones.

All the charges are framed by a multidisciplinary crack security team of Central Intelligence, Police and Army intelligence officers.

The team only heeds orders from President Mugabe, Army Commander Constantine Chiwenga, Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri and Happyton Bonyongwe the Director of Central Intelligence and Attorney General Johannes Tomana.

That is the reason why all Ministers including Home Affairs Co-Ministers Kembo Mohadi and Giles Mutseyekwa are powerless to stop the vindictive actions of this crack team against perceived or real enemies of President Mugabe and Zanu PF.

Most of the cases the team handles are imaginary cases where they have either planted incriminating evidence on a targeted suspect or where Zanu PF has waylaid induced and or provoked its opponents to break the law.

So it was when Deputy Minister Mahlangu was trapped in the theft of a $25.00 Cell Phone from Zanu PF’s notorious commander of farm invasions and questionable War Veteran Joseph Chinotimba.

All the arrests, abductions, incarcerations and judicial persecutions against the MDC-T are nothing more than a well planned Zanu PF political initiative to discredit MDC-T leadership.

It matters not that most cases will fall through on trial in court but in a country where accused persons are generally presumed guilty until proven innocent the intention is clear that the stigma of arrest and humiliation in court appearances will leave lasting aspersions on the minds of the electorate on the caliber of leadership from the MDC-T.

Sadly though the opposite is true in that whichever MDC-T the judiciary persecutes is turned into an overnight hero of the fight for freedom from Zanu PF misrule.

The more the Tomana advised security officers harass the MDC leaders the more faith the electorate has in the victims whom they accept as true liberators without question.

Even where the State secures a conviction on the trumped up charges or on the merits of the cases the generality of the populace remains firmly behind the convicts and or victims.

Freed at last Jestina Mukoko as Prosecution case goes in smoke

All this harassment came to nothing on Monday28 September 2009 for ZPP Director Jestina Mukoko seen here being dragged to Court in January 2009

The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has dealt a fatal blow to the political mischief of the Minister of Justice Patrick Chinamasa in collusion with Co-Minister of Home Affairs Kembo Mohadi, Police commissioner General Augustine Chihuri and Attorney General Jahannes Tomana.

The remnants of Zanu PF resistance to the coalition government initiative connived with Zanu PF stalwarts including its Supreme Leader, First Secretary, Head of State and “Government”, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces “His Excellency” “Comrade” Robert Gabriel Mugabe to roll out a ruthless purge of MDC-T and Civic Society activists through a judicial persecution initiative that ended in dismay on Monday 28 September 2009.

The ruthless Zanu PF merchants of oppression had between October and 23 December 2008rounded up scores of MDC and Civic Society activists in raids mounted during unsocial hours by a crack team of Law and Order Police and Central Intelligence Officers under the command of the trusted Superintendent Makendenge.

The abducted were held incommunicado in various prisons and detention centres where they claim they were tortured and subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment including being denied food, water, blankets and being threatened with death unless they admitted to involvement in banditry and insurgence training.

Following his humiliating defeat in the March Presidential elections at the hands of MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai which he conceded to but refused to vacate office Robert Mugabe fronted a Military Junta that was vilified globally after he staged a bloody runoff Presidential election he ended the sole contestant having haunted his opponent out of the race by denying him campaigning space and butchering opponent’s supporters.

The failure to gain international legitimacy forced Mugabe and his Zanu PF party to seek Sadc mediation in talks with Morgan Tsvangirai and his victorious MDC party.

Having agreed to form the coalition government with Tsvangirai and Mutambara, problems had emerged with power sharing quotas.

Zanu PF wanted to expropriate all the critical Ministries for its Ministerial contingent and relegate the two MDC’s to manage the less critical ones.
The MDC-T would have none of that triggering the Zanu PF ire which saw the persecution of its supporters.

At least 41 perceived or real MDC-T supporters were abducted in a flexing of muscle by Mugabe to coerce MDC-T to accept to his unilateral allotment of Ministries and other appointments like Provincial Governors, Attorney General, Permanent secretaries and RBZ Governor.

Incensed the MDC-T responded by threatening a pullout from the GPA unless all its supporters that were missing and believed to be in the custody of State security agents were either released unconditionally or brought to Court before I January 2009and charged with the offences they were allegedly being detained for in accordance with the laws.

Most were brought to Court and granted bail but remained in detention for a further fortnight because the compromised Attorney General had invoked Section 23 of the Criminal Evidence and Procedures Act.

Seven others namely Gwenzi Kahiya, Lovemore Machokoto, Charles Muza, Ephraim Mabeka, Edmore Vangirayi, Peter Munyanyi, and Graham Matehwa remain unaccounted for to date.

The vindictive action by the AG in opposing the granting of bail to the accused was widely condemned by the MDC-T and many political commentators.

The detention officers meanwhile used all means possible to extract confessions from the detainees and produced a voluminous dossier supported by video footage of the detainees.

Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa and Media and Information and Publicity Secretary who doubles as Presidential spokesman George Charamba made some feeble noises based on the dossier of the so called confessions to banditry.

They alleged that the MDC-T leader and Prime Minister Designate Morgan Tsvangirai had set up Jonas Savimbi style training camps for insurgents in Botswana which he intends to unleash to force regime change illegally.

On that basis Zanu PF demanded that it preside over all Security Ministries including co-Ministering the disputed Home Affairs Ministry.

The dossier was submitted to Sadc after President Mugabe had reiterated the allegations at the SADC meeting in Swaziland and Sadc in turn appointed a team of investigators to verify the authenticity of Zanu PF claims of the existence of

Insurgent Training Camps in Botswana.
After reviewing the evidence South Africa President Jacob Zuma dismissed Zanu PF allegations against Botswana and the MDC-T leader as baseless.

The investigation team put together by Sadc to look into the allegations drew a blank but still the AG’s Office would not concede defeat.

The detainees were indicted to trial based on the same evidence that had already been dismissed as baseless and concocted by Sadc and the MDC-T respectively.

Trials would not take off as groups of the accused persons took turns to plead Constitutional rights infringements in the manner in which they had been arrested, detained and brought to Court.

Each group of accused in turn applied to the Constitutional Court to rule on the legality of the manner and conduct of the arresting details’ in upholding accused people’s constitutional rights in these cases.

The first of the applications to be determined involved the prominent former ZBC news anchor Jestina Mukoko who had graduated into the Zimbabwe Peace Project Director – a Human Rights watch group that had been targeted for its sterling efforts at exposing political excesses of the Junta.

In that matter where she is jointly charged with Concilia Chinanzvavana and 7 others of recruiting insurgents for the purpose of dethroning the Junta regime, the decision has gone against the State and she has been permanently set free by the highest court in the land.

While the court decision was to free only Jestina Mukoko, the precedents in her case can now be exploited by the others whose matters are still pending adjudication before the same Court.

This is a frightening prospect for the prosecution because already it has been forced to admit procedural violations in the manner one in a group of abductees has been treated during the arrest and appearance in court process.

Given that the same procedures were employed in the arrest and detention of Mukoko’s co-accused and or other political activists facing similar and or related accusations the chances of the State securing convictions have been severely dented if not completely diminished.

For many neutrals the allegations leveled against all the accused persons who were detained between September and December 2008 were politically inspired and without substance.

It would come as a major surprise if the Constitutional court was to arrive at a different decision than that it established in the matter involving Mukoko.

This is not to say that the Constitutional Court has completely tied its hands on the Mukoko decision because the State still has a chance to make a compelling case for each of the remaining accused and if it does it may well secure the right to put those accused people on their defenses.

The problem for Johannes Tomana and his prosecution team is however near insurmountable for to do so he must find a way to show the court that the accused were not abducted, held incommunicado, tortured to confess, denied basic freedoms to legal representation and in excess of prescribed limits without being brought to court and generally treated inhumanely all of which have been established in Mukoko’s case.

The same officers who botched Mukoko’s arrest and detention were involved in all the other cases and it is hard to believe they used different methodologies than those they applied in Mukoko’s case.

But undaunted Attorney General Johannes Tomana is putting a brave face against these odds and has vowed to proceed with prosecutions of the remaining accused while abiding by the Court’s ruling in respect of Mukoko.

The fact of the matter is the AG is in a quandary over the cases he should have boldly refused to entertain and avoided the embarrassment now engulfing his office and more importantly saved the nation the wasted resources channeled in persecuting
Zanu PF political opponents.

From a legal point of view the Constitutional Court determination can only be set aside by a Presidential decree which Mugabe has no stomach to pronounce.

Meanwhile the prospect of failure to secure convictions in remnant cases and attendant embarrassment to his office looms large yet to withdraw the matters at this late stage would be unthinkable given his refusal to listen to conventional wisdom against proceeding to prosecution with the flawed cases.

At this level of professionalism the only commendable and honourable redemption is for the AG to withdraw the cases and concurrently resign from his disputed post and apologise to the nation for his unprofessional conduct which was inspired by his self confessed association with Zanu PF.

Not that there is anyone who expects that kind of honourable conduct to come from a Zanu PF apologist like Tomana but the long term effects of Mukoko’s permanent stay of prosecution in a matter that was highly politicized from the onset are yet to be felt by Tomana.

Should he decide to hang in there against national negative sentiment over his suitability as the AG, he must prepare for the repercussions that will follow the demise of those that are using him to score cheap political points against opponents.
The brave victims of his ill advised vindictiveness will have their day over him in future and he will not love any of the actions that will be taken against him and his handlers in Zanu PF.

Another one slips through the net for Tomana

AG Johannes Tomana lost the persecution case against Advocate Eric Matinenga right

Parliamentary and Constitutional Affairs Minister Advocate Eric Matinenga a priced catch in Mugabe’s unrelenting politics of legal persecution of senior MDC officials must rank as one of the latest big catch that went away for Mugabe.

From 31 May 2008 Matinenga... spent several months behind the Zimbabwe prison bars accused of inciting residents in his Buhera south constituency to commit acts of political violence against Zanu PF supporters after prosecutors opposed the granting of bail on account he had committed serious offences and would interfere with investigations and witnesses if granted bail.

But the persecution came to a dead end when Manicaland Regional Magistrate, Hlekani Mwayera presiding over the matter ruled as was widely expected that the State (read here Attorney General Johannes Tomana) had failed to substantiate accusations levelled against the legislator and discharged him to full freedom.

The Mutare Magistrate left prosecutors ruing the one that went away like a fisherman after losing a landed catch.

In a related matter Murambinda Magistrate Tendai Mahwe acquitted 11 MDC members who were accused of torching property belonging to ZANU-PF supporters at the time Premier Morgan Tsvangirai's wife, Susan who had passed away in a tragic and suspicious accident was being laid to rest in Buhera.

It appears even the small catch is hard to keep in Johannes Tomana’s leaky keep net for political prisoners whose only crime is opposition to Zanu PF politics and misrule.

The 11 were exonerated of any wrongdoing by all the witnesses leaving one wondering why they were ever arrested to the extent of being brought to court on charges no witness had ever testified to.

Magistrate Mahwe convicted six other individuals and sentenced them to 36 months in prison with six months suspended and another 12 months suspended on condition that the individuals compensate the complainants as consolation for Tomana’s persecution efforts.

The convictions will do little to satisfy Tomana and may very well have been because the accused lacked proper defence representation as the crime for which they were convicted was widely reported to have been a retaliatory measure they took after minority Zanu PF hooligans had gone on a rampage beating up elderly and juvenile villagers who had been left exposed after the vigilant youths that normally shielded them had gone for the funeral.

It’s like a fisherman left with tadpoles in his keep net after the big catch slips through a hole in the net.

Tomana exposes Zimbabwe judicial impotence and deserves the sack

Zanu PF compromised Zimbabwe AG Johannes Tomana

Whenever there is talk about the State detaining or refusing to abide by judicial orders against it Zimbabweans can now safely replace “the State” with Robert Mugabe, Patrick Chinamasa, Johannes Tomana and Augustine Chihuri or their official capacities namely the President, Minister of Justice, Attorney General and Police Commissioner General.

So instead of stating “In the matter of the State vs. Ghandi Mudzingwa, Christopher Dhlamini and Shadreck Manyere” the accurate description of the matter for proper citation should be “In the matter The President, Minister of Justice, Attorney General and Police Commissioner General (PCG)[State] vs. Ghandi Mudzingwa, Christopher Dhlamini and Shadreck Manyere.”

The later citation identifies the parties with the precision that is lacking in the first because the word State used in general carries different and varied meanings that include the Nation of Zimbabwe in relation to its geographic boundaries and nationals therein or the Government of Zimbabwe including all its pillars of power namely the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature as well as quasi governmental institutions such as Local Authorities, Parastatals and Commissions that exercise government power in specialised areas on behalf of the representative capacity of Government.

This ambiguity inherent in the former citation has caused other democracies to cite criminal litigation cases qualitatively as “The State prosecution Services vs. The Accused in their individual names or collectively.

The bungling in the case in which Jestina Mukoko and 15 others (collective citation) have been abducted and detained incommunicado for between 3 and 4 months before being brought to Court against a maximum stipulation that anyone arrested by the State must be brought to Court within 48 hours of the arrest has served to clarify the matter for the ordinary Zimbabweans.

It is not in dispute that the accused were abducted, detained and tortured by the State’s Central Intelligence Operatives (CIO) and by extension the State.

When however they appeared before the Court for remand hearings the State’s Police Officer’s (read Police Commissioner General Augustine Chihuri) swore before the Court that he had only took the accused into custody the previous day and thus had not breached the right of the accused to be brought to Court within 48 hours of their arrest.

The Court amazingly believed him and remanded the accused in custody without inquiring into the whereabouts of the accused for the past 3-4 months despite defence allegations with proof the accused were in State custody and thus were improperly before the Court for remand.

The implication of the Remand Court’s decision is that CIO’s are not the State in criminal Prosecutions and thus whatever time they unlawfully deprive a citizen of his/her freedom has no bearing in Court proceedings thereafter initiated by the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) who are, in criminal prosecution the only recognised law enforcement agency with powers to detain anyone on behalf of the State.

That is a most absurd reality Attorney General Johannes Tomana has not bothered to explain before rushing to exonerate himself of any wrong in the current debacle involving the same accused persons.

The outrageous court decision to order the detention of the accused as if they had just been arrested triggered numerous Court Applications in the Magistrates, high and Supreme Courts of Zimbabwe.

Then it was generally held that the Junta regime fronted by an unelected Robert Mugabe was the State acting in common purpose against people it believed were in the process of preparing to commit acts of terrorism ,banditry and insurgency against a “LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT” despite that there was no defacto elected government at the time they were arrested.

After conception of the coalition government, there was intense haggling in the Executive wing of the government between the Presidency and the Premiership over the detainees fate wherein the President maintained that due process of the law must take its course for the detainees to regain their freedom while the Premiership argued that incarcerations in custody were not legal due process but political persecution of the accused because of the nature of allegations against them.

The argument was that not only were the charges against the spirit of coalition governance given that they were raised by a defunct administration but they were retributive because the government they intended to topple was no longer of illegal toppling as it was defunct but its residual elements in the coalition were after revenge which revenge agenda lacked consensus in the new order.

In any event it was argued that due process of the law could not only be satisfied if the accused were incarcerated for long periods pending trial as the same process could be satisfied if the accused were admitted to bail pending trial which eventually prevailed but not without reluctance from State Prosecution Services who seemed to be under directives to oppose bail applications of the accused from the Presidency and the PCG.

Having been admitted to bail and strictly abided by the conditions attendant to admission the accused were brought to court and indicted to trial on 4 June 2009 i.e. a month after indictment.

Prosecution services who were forced to drop spurious section 121 of the Criminal Procedures and Evidence Act (CPEA) objections to admission to bail of the accused by Executive political interventions of the Presidency and Premiership through the Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (JOMIC) of the ruling coalition, sought to use the opportunity presented by the indictment process to re-detain the accused to please the presidency which grudgingly consented to the initial admissions to bail.

Timely reminders to the presiding Magistrate Catherine Chimhanda and the State Prosecution Services that the bail conditions extended to the accused were not independent Court rulings per se but rather politically directed compliances by the Court that should extend into the indictment period before trial were opposed by the overzealous Prosecution Services on instructions from the Minister of Justice and The Attorney General who is the coalition government’s principal law officer.

Despite the opposition to bail extension being legal correct and impossible of legally turning down the net effect of re-detaining the activists now by the coalition government was so outrageous as it implied the MDC to which most of the detainees belong was infact endorsing that the accused had indeed attempted to overthrow the Mugabe led Junta using military means and such an admission would have been self incriminating for the MDC.

Naturally the MDC Party with an impeccable record of peaceful political indulgence vehemently protested and condemned the latest re-detentions and went on to pressure the coalition government Presidency to abide by initially agreed bail conditions for the accused or face the collapse of the coalition government.

The MDC pressure was ratcheted up by regional, continental and international condemnation of the detentions of the activists in Prisons recently exposed by a South African Television documentary and Deputy Minister of Agriculture Roy Bennett as hell holes of hunger, disease and starvation.

The activists only spent a night in detention and were released the following day following “negotiations” between the AG and Defence Attorneys for the accused that convinced Tomana to accept re-admission to bail conditions that applied to the accused activists prior to indictment procedures the previous day.

Poor Magistrate Catherine Chimhanda without any judicial independence on the matter whatsoever was humiliated when she was compelled to reschedule cases to accommodate the urgent re-hearing of the activists’ case which she had correctly said was beyond legal competence to challenge her detention order.

After less than a five minute appearance she legally and competently reversed and quashed her previous ruling and admitted the activists’ to their previous bail conditions and 2 hours later they were all released from the notorious Chikurubi Prison where the 73 year old Fidelis Chiramba alleged he was short supplied blankets and water.

Under siege and Zanu PF compromised Attorney General says he is surprised that when his office adhered to the law and exceeded Court expectations there are people who are bastardising his office for complicity in the cynical re-detention of the activists and their swift re-admission to previous bail conditions attendant to each of them.

Much like Electoral Supervisory Commission Chairman Justice Chiweshe justifying failure by his officers to count 4 million Presidential ballots and announce results over 35 days when Mugabe was trailing Tsvangirai after the 29 March election but counting a similar number of ballots and announcing the 27 June runoff election within 48 hours including installing Mugabe to the thrown when he was left a lonely contestant in the race after Tsvangirai withdrew at the last minute but his name appeared on the ballot paper.

It is exactly this kind of mischief that makes Tomana a disgusting AG.

Here is a Principal State Prosecutor who from 2000 has been protecting the notorious CIO alleged murderer of Chiminya and Mabika having the temerity to crow about swiftly detaining for 5 months, innocent MDC political activists over allegations of attempting to topple a defunct Junta regime by insurgency and banditry actions.

When they were granted bail by the Courts he did everything in his power to keep them in detention only capitulating to political pressure to admit them to bail.

The AG blames the Defence attorneys of complicating admission to bail of their clients which his office was not initially opposed to but had to oppose as a matter of principle to show that the defence lawyers were incompetent as he got the decision to detain accused endorsed by the court and having conveyed the message showed his muscle by reversing the detention order through negotiations with the same lawyers whom he had reduced to size.

Hardly the stuff one would expect from a man of such responsible status in Zimbabwe.

Why would a well meaning AG use people he genuinely believes are good candidates for admission to bail punish the same people with detention orders simply because they have incompetent representation.

Are these people worthy anything to Tomana? Is there any wonder why the nation is unanimous that he must be relieved of the AG’s post?

Because of his ego the National Media Reform conference is now in jeopardy.

International donors and investors who the country is desperately trying to woe are having a re-think about coming to the country’s aid. Political temperatures which were subsiding have been ignited and ultimatums are flying around.

Surely the country deserves people with better judgement of implications of their ego satisfying indulgences.

This is what Zanu PF zealot Jonathan moyo did not see when he came out in full support of Tomana's irregular elevation to AG.

How independent is a judiciary that rubberstamps political decisions and pass them for court determinations as Catherine Chimhanda has been forced to do in this matter?

Treason here treason there treason everywhere and everything

Victim:The late Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole-Top right

Useless and unreliable witness Ari Ben Menashe Center



Victims: Roy Bennett and Morgan Tsvangirai below left


The arrest and incarceration of Roy (Pachedu) Bennett on 13 February 2009 over alleged treason elevates him to a rare breed of illustrious freedom fighters in our country.

From colonial times not a single leader who confronted the British colonists escaped detente on allegations of committing treason against the settler regime.
Many others were abducted never to...
.
be seen again.

President Mugabe and most of the geriatrics he has appointed to the Inclusive government whose first casualty of treason allegation ironically is Roy Bennett who was earmarked to be a Deputy Minister in the said government were not sparred the abuse of trumped up treason allegations and detentions without trial.

Where they were “lucky” to secure a court hearing the verdict was foregone and the hearing only provided them rare publicity albeit negative publicity which paradoxically had positive motivational effects on their followers.

The kind of motivation associated with spectators to rooting for the underdog in any sporting contest.

The reaction of MDC supporters in Mutare to news of the detention of Mr Bennett is a case in point.

The arrest was a carefully planned prod by remnants of the notorious JOC mindset aimed at testing resolve and commitment to the Inclusive Government by it subscribers.

A proverbial spanner thrown into the works so to speak. A provocation to gauge reactions of the National Security loathed Inclusive Government Prime Minister to escalated pressure in the opposite direction to the liberated and free political environment he coalesced to achieve.

Bennett returned to the country after assurances had been given by the defunct government that preceded the Inclusive Government but some mischievous law enforcement foot soldier of the disgruntled military commanders in possession of a valid Court warrant for his arrest was given the green light to execute the warrant and provoke the Prime Minister’s reaction.

The mischief mongers must have been utterly disappointed by the PM’s response to the provocation.

“The commitment to the Inclusive Government initiative has reached a point where irritating distractions from remnants of previous beneficiaries of the corrupt proceeds of the immediate past regime will not derail it but rather there is need to address the residual pockets of resistance,” he responded or something to that effect.

In its generality treason is accepted as the crime committed by anyone expected to be loyal to a State authority by citizenship or residence and or both who tries to actively or otherwise encourage others to depose the State authority by unlawful means.

The reasons for such unlawful conduct are neither here nor there no matter how justified they maybe.

It is not clear how a treasonous act towards a State authority who is lawfully deposed by another prior to the treasonous act materialising would be handled by the new authority.

In many countries however it would appear that blanket pardons and or clemency have been employed to clean the slate of such crimes.

Be that as it may, it is clear that the number of treason allegations a state authority alleges are an accurate measure of the popularity of the State authority with its subjects.

In Zimbabwe anyone who actively seeks to depose Mugabe and Zanu PF from power by whatever means is at a great risk of being done for on allegations of treason.

This is an integral Zanu PF strategy that evolves from its desire for a One Party State democracy. Augustine Chihuri Police Commissioner General, former Minister of Economic Development Rugare Gumbo, Wilfred Mhanda aka Dzinashe Machingura, the late Henry Hamadziripi, Crispen Mandizvidza, Mukudzei Mudzi were accused of treason within Zanu PF as far back as1978.

Mugabe never forgave them for that and all the deceased have failed to make it to a National Hero Status which the likes of party novices like Dr Chenjerai Hunzvi, Elliot Manyika, Elliot Manyika and Sally Mugabe were generously granted.

If it had not been for the late Mozambican President’s intervention Mugabe intended to keep them in detente in military camps where they had been confined from 1978 until 1980 when they were freed. Henry Hamadziripi was hardened by the detention and died an unrepentant critic of Mugabe.

Mhanda still holds a very low opinion of Mugabe to date because of the ill treatment he was subjected to while fighting for the liberation of our country.

Detention of political competitors by Mugabe’s Zanu PF has remained a central suppression weapon Mugabe uses generously.

In March 1982, six supporters of Joshua Nkomo’s PF ZAPU that included Dumiso Dabengwa and Lookout Masuku were cleared of treason charges but Mugabe ordered they be held indefinitely.

Their leader Joshua Nkomo was sacked from the coalition Zanu PF, CAZ and PF Zapu government, Gukurahundi was unleashed in the Matabeleland PF Zapu stronghold.

On 13 March 198 the embattled PF ZAPU leader escaped trumped up treason charges to seek refuge in former colonial master’s Britain.

He then revealed he had intelligence that his life was in grave danger from Zanu PF government deployed 5Th Brigade that was committing genocide among his supporters.

The treason charges arose from arms caches allegedly discovered at various farms owned by PF Zapu’s Nitram Investments Company which Dr Nkomo and his leadership denied ownership of and alleged were the clandestine implants of the CIO to justify the repressive genocide.

On 14 October 1995 it was the turn of the late ZANU founder member Reverend Nbabaningi Sithole, 75, whose party had frustrated Mugabe’s One Party State initiative by holding onto two Parliamentary seats in Manicaland to be detained for treason.

He was alleged to have links with a rebel group in neighbouring Mozambique. He was abducted and held incommunicado in various police cells and his relatives spent days trying to establish his whereabouts until a concerned Inspector Edmund Kahari disclosed that he was in police custody and could be anywhere during the day but was a Highlands police station prisoner at night.

Incensed Reverend Sithole’s wife Vesta then commented that the allegations against her husband were malicious political fabrications by Zanu PF and Mugabe over the ZANU acronym of the parties the two led. "These are trumped... Mugabe has a personal vendetta against him and ZANU-PF is pursuing this grudge and I find that very unfair," she said.

He died in hospital in Philadelphia, United States, aged 80 on 11 December 2000 with the treason allegations still hanging on his neck. Nothing has been said thereafter about the fate of his alleged Mozambican based dissidents.

On 8 January 2001, the Zimbabwe Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay ruled that the Zimbabwe Police entries and seizure of property at the residence of John Nkathazo and Solomon Chikowero during the early hours of 14 September 2000 were unlawful and in contravention of the Constitution.

The seizures of the documents from the MDC offices on the afternoon of 15 September 2000 without first identifying by means of searches that such documents afforded evidence of the commission or suspected commission of an offence were unlawful and in contravention of the Constitution."

The same court also ruled that the detentions of Gandhi Mudzingwa, an assistant to the MDC president Morgan Tsvangirai, Nelson Chamisa, the party's national youth chairman, Nkathazo, the dismissed MDC security chief, and Solomon Chikowero, a party security official, were unlawful.

They were being investigated for treasonous acts of trying to overthrow Mugabe after the nascent MDC party had given Zanu PF a bloodied nose in the 2000 Parliamentary elections where it had to resort to open massive rigging to retain power.

On 26 February 2002 current Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Richard Tsvangirai was charged with treason for allegedly plotting to assassinate President Robert Mugabe, charges he vigorously denied.

He had challenged Mugabe in a Presidential election that was to be held in March of the same year when the charges were raised while he was on the campaign trail.

“This whole thing is contrived to damage me politically,” Morgan Tsvangirai said and added “The timing is obvious. This was all along a Zanu PF party strategy to eliminate me from the race.”

On 15 October 2004 he was exonerated of the treason allegations by Justice Garwe in a case where Ari Ben Menashe was the star State witness and where the Court was asked to convict on the basis of grainy and video evidence that was neither visible nor laudable.
He still had another treason charge hanging on his neck over allegations of calling an illegal five-day strike in June 2003.

The spurious 2nd set of treason allegations fell through on 2 Aug 2005 when Prosecutor Florence Ziyambi told the Magistrate Courts;

"The state is withdrawing charges before plea," without giving a reason.

On 26 September 2002, Zimbabwe National Students Union (Zinasu) national council member Mehluli Dube was charged with treason over statements he had mad at a student’s meeting in Gwanda where he allegedly stated “if President Mugabe does not want to go, we will remove him by the ballot or the bullet”.

The matter is still pending.

On 23 December 2004,Phillip Chiyangwa, Godfrey Dzvairo, Zimbabwe's ambassador to Mozambique; Kenny Karidza, Zanu PF deputy security chief; and Tendai Matambanadzo, Metropolitan Bank secretary, all of them renowned Zanu PF zealots, picked up at different times and dates by unknown people the previous week were charged with espionage.

There was a deliberate avoidance of alleging treason because Chiyangwa is a close cousin of Mugabe and an attempt to charge him with an offence carrying the death sentence would have embarrassed Mugabe within extended family circles which in Zimbabwe are a powerful social behaviour modification control.

He was to be the only one to escape imprisonment over the charges.

Although not an illustrious freedom fighter the arrest of Chiyangwa was meant to send a clear national message that no one is safe from such allegations.

In March 2007 after savagely beating up opposition leaders in custody for attending a Save Zimbabwe Campaign prayer meeting the Police and Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) stage managed petrol bombings of police stations railway lines and bridges in was later found to be falsified pretext upon which to detain opposition MDC political activists by a court presided over by Justice Kamocha.

Prominent MDC members Ian Makone, Morgan Komichi, Paul Madzore, Luke Tamborinyoka, Tonderai Ndira (late) and 29 others were rounded up and detained without trial for four months before being freed following Justice Kamocha’s ruling that Police had:

• faked evidence against opposition activists accused of mounting a gasoline bombing campaign
• failed to show the location on maps of a farm where the suspects were allegedly trained in terror tactics which as it turned out were non existent
• Two men whom police had called key witnesses, but did not produce to testify, were fictitious persons who did not exist.

Attorneys for the 34 detained MDC activists Alec Muchahedama and Andrew Makoni were themselves arrested by the police during the trial for describing evidence given in court as having been faked.

Their detention sparked a protest march by Legal Practitioners which was violently disrupted by riot Police and where President of the law Society Beatrice Mtetwa was abducted and severely assaulted.

On 17 April 2008 a ludicrous challenge on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was mounted by Zanu PF Junta spokesman Patrick Chinamasa over his correct observation that,

"No one thinks, having seen the results of polling stations, that President Mugabe has won."

The incoherent and garrulous Chinamasa retorted: "It is clear from the correspondence that Tsvangirai along with Brown are seeking regime change in Zimbabwe, and on the part of Tsvangirai, this is treasonous. There is no doubting the consequences for acting in a treasonous manner."

Evidently Chinamasa never understood the fundamental elements of the crime of treason from his curious legal training on which he casts aspersions by interpreting an actual reading of electoral results by anyone to be treasonous.

Either that or he was just being mischievous.

On 12 June 2008, after flying back to Zimbabwe from neighbouring South Africa, Hon Tendai Biti, Minister of Finance in the current coalition Zimbabwe government was arrested and ridiculed by being brought to Court in leg Irons over treason allegations stemming from the announcement he made claiming an MDC Parliamentary and Presidential victory after the ZEC had withheld announcement of final Presidential results for two weeks after the election was staged.

The allegations were weighted with a fraudulent strategy document he allegedly authored on the MDC regime change strategy which both the Party and he personally denied having authored alleging it was another product of the nefarious activities in State CIO offices.

It was never understandable how the universal political claim of victory after elections could degenerate into a treasonous act in Zimbabwe alone.
And the allegations as was largely expected were dropped after the State failed to prosecute.

The Biti charges followed hard on the heels of the 29 May 2008, State arrests and charges of retired Zimbabwe National Army Captain Mugove Matapo, in service Brigadier Engelbert Rugeje, Capt Shepherd Maromo and Olivine Morale with treason involving attempting to recruit ZNA soldiers to topple Mugabe.

To date they are still languishing in remand prison.

On 4 November 2008 Police arrested Africa Sun CEO Shingi Munyeza on treason allegations arising from him having allegedly told Nigerian tourists staying at the Kingdom Hotel during the Sanganai Festival that Zimbabwe is a bad tourist destination and overpricing foreign currency charges for services rendered by his enterprise.

It sounds really absurd doesn’t it? But in a country where several bankers have been forced to flee to seek refuge from Reserve Bank harassment over suspected externalisation of foreign currency it is of major concern that an entrepreneur in the shrinking tourism can be accused of treason for stating the obvious reason why the sector is experiencing challenging times.

On 24 December 2008, Police brought to court Jestina Mukoko and no less than 36 other Human rights and MDC activists including a two year old child and journalist Shadreck Manyere, who had been missing since 3-13 December 2008.

All of them had been abducted by CIO agents, held incommunicado and tortured on allegations of treason in that they allegedly were involved in recruiting insurgents for training in Botswana to be used in effecting regime change in the country through violent uprisings.

The false allegations were even tabled before SADC as evidence why the Home Affairs Ministry could not be allowed to be solely ministered by an MDC Minister.
Hitherto The Zanu PF junta government had denied any knowledge as to the whereabouts of the abductees.

They were only brought to court by the Police when then Prime Minister designate Morgan Tsvangirai threatened a total pull out from negotiations to form an agreed coalition government for the country if they were not released or formally charged in court by 1 January 2009.

Now the Police have arrested and charged Mr Bennett who had been exiled in South Africa but had been recalled by the MDC to take up appointment as Deputy Agriculture Minister in the coalition government which was being sworn into office at the time of his arrest.

The timing of the arrest was intended to cause disaffection with the Inclusive government within the feared and loathed MDC-T party and the still birth of the Inclusive government or alternatively to provoke a reaction that would give the police a pretext to arrest other senior MDC-T party functionaries for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.

That would embarrass the party that has for over a decade accused government of selective application of justice if it was to intercede on Bennett’s arrest.

All they got was an MDC comment stating;
"These charges are scandalous, vexatious and without basis in law, but are simply politically motivated, simply intended to justify the continued incarceration of Roy Bennett."

The main target of the provocation Prime Minister Tsvangirai outsmarted the incident initiators by stating it had everything to do with remnants of previous regime indoctrination that will be addressed and corrected through due process.

The reality is that the arrest of Roy Bennett was and is malicious and vindictive. The intent is to rock the Inclusive Government with divisive political initiatives that will distract in particular MDC-T Ministers from focussing on the economic turnaround agenda and situate it in the unproductive political power salvaging arena.

It is crucial for the MDC to assign the Party’s Legal and Politics Departments to deal with the Bennett and other party political distractions and leave the Cabinet members to concentrate on National governance issues.

Any leader who is subject of the intensity of treason to the extent above must think twice about his her continued leadership of disillusioned citizens.

It is incomprehensible that Bennett can be successfully prosecuted for treasonous crimes against a defunct regime that is no longer physically possible of dethroning legally or otherwise.

The same goes for the political detainees in current detente.

It will only be a matter of time that charges are withdrawn and or Unity Government Presidential clemency will free them.

In the meantime all we can do is extent national solidarity to the gallant fighters for our emancipation from totalianism and State abuse.

The frightening prospect of imminent change

Zimbabwe Inclusive Government Keymen Professor Arthur Mutambara (co-Deputy Prime Minister Designate, Morgan Tsvangirai (Prime Minister Designate) Robert Mugabe (President Designate) must answer why they find it appropriate to entrust national responsibilities to the unelected ahead of the nationally elected representatives of the electorate.

Woodrow Wilson long postulated that;
“If you want to make enemies, try to change something.”

But the converse is equally true that;
If you want to make bitter enemies, try not to do something about changed circumstances.

The formation of the Zimbabwe Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (JOMIC) tasked with steering the implementation of the 15 September 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA) between MDC-M, Zanu PF, and MDC-T provides some interesting pointers to that effect.

Appointing the same people to multiple yet critical institutions to manage and spearhead national change stymies innovation.


It is a telling sign of stagnation in leadership development within an organisation when the same mindsets are recycled in various roles demanding different dynamism to produce extraordinary results.

The argument for consistence and experience is no justification for conservativism where versatility and fresh thinking are deficiencies that could be in the way of success.

MDC-T appointed, Elton Mangoma ( Chairman); Elias Mudzuri, Tabitha Khumalo and Innocent Chagonda while MDC-M appointed, Welshman Ncube ( Chairman) Priscilla Misihairambwi-Mushonga, Frank Chamunorwa and Edward Mkhosi and ZANU PF appointed , Nicholas Goche (Chairman), Emmerson Mnangagwa, Patrick Chinamasa and Oppah Muchinguri.

Out of the 12 members of JOMIC tasked with ensuring implementation adherence to the GPA terms 5 were official negotiators of the agreement that seeks to supplant the electorate’s free choice of who should form a government in the country made on 29 March 2008.

Out of those five 3 are chairpersons of their respective party delegation and automatically co-chairpersons of JOMIC.

Only 2 of the initial 5 official party negotiators elevated to sit on the JOMIC were however elected when they contested the29 March elections and the remaining 3 were thus imposed by their parties against national will. A further 4 out of the remaining seven members of JOMIC contested elections in March and lost while 1 did not contest at all leaving only 2 other elected members on board.

Is there any political arrogance by a political party that can beat that? Are we seriously expected to believe that those that carried the respective party mantle in national elections are not competent to represent the people’s interests in undemocratic processes that supplant their will?

MDC-M has retained unelected Welshman Ncube as chairman supported by the equally unelected Priscilla Misihairambwi-Mushonga and Frank Chamunorwa and the electorate mandated Edward Mkhosi. Zanu PF retained the Nicholas Goche (chairman) supported by the electorate mandated Emmerson Mnangagwa and the unelected Patrick Chinamasa and Oppah Muchinguri while MDC-T have elevated Elton Mangoma ( Chairman) supported by the electorate mandated Elias Mudzuri, Tabitha Khumalo and unmandated legal practitioner Innocent Chagonda.

When the processes hit snags or fail to deliver to expectation of the people they will bear this in mind and the parties will pay a heavy political price for their disrespect of followers.

Party Youths will have reason to be dismayed by the confidence their parties have shown in their abilities to play meaningful national roles and they must demand explanation for their exclusion from JOMIC where they could exert significant influence and expedite processes.

Frightened party elders appear to have decided to avoid the Youth because the youthful are more daring and will not be afraid to rock the boat to expedite decisions.

Be that as it may MDC-M and Zanu PF appear to share a common trait of thumping noses at the people favourite representatives and substituting them with leadership favourites.

The reason is clear that Zanu PF and MDC-M leadership is elitist and has little regard for grassroots opinions a label which MDC-M may find difficult to deal with if the inclusive government delivers on its promise to work towards an electoral democratic process where free will and not fear of violence will characterise voting decisions and choices.

The elevation of GPA negotiators to supervise adherence to terms agreed has the greatest potential to rekindle differences at negotiation level and cause a stalemate given entrenched beliefs the initial negotiators have from negotiation discord.

It is also a proven fact that familiarity kills ingenuity. What difference should we expect from a committee that negotiated the agreement they have now been elevated to oversee implementation of and clear roadblocks in its way?

At the most we can expect differences that were there at the start of negotiations to persist throughout implementation and at the min bulldozed implementation.

It’s a frightening prospect that we must live with and do the best we can to caution against.

In those fears about imminent changes we are not alone.
Robert Mugabe’s official spokesman George Charamba aka Nathaniel Manheru is in worse predicament.

For far too long he has abused his position to speak rather authoritatively on Government and Zanu PF issues without any challenge being officially launched against his bad mouthing of Zanu PF’s political opponents.

But lately he appears to have chewed more than he can swallow when he falsely accused MDC Secretary General Hon Tendai Biti of mooting a replica of the infamous 12 October 2005 split of the MDC over Senatorial elections participation in the current MDC-T over participation in the inclusive government before certain conditions entrenched in the GPA have been met .

Incensed Biti sought retraction from the Herald that published the outrageous libel but it failed and/or refused to retract or more precisely was barred from retracting by Charamba.

Hon Biti who is by no means a legal lightweight in his own right promptly slapped the Herald and its features and political editor Mabasa Sasa and reporter Sydney Kawadza, authors of the libellous articles, with a defamation suit.

The foolish scribes who have allowed themselves to be used by Charamba to falsely label anyone who dares oppose or criticise Mugabe and Zanu PF but had hitherto never been sued for their malfeasances were shocked and scampered to Charamba’s office for help.

Charamba was equally shocked at the turn of events given the political stature of Hon Biti.

He had held that political mud flung in Biti’s direction would either be politically rebuffed by Biti and the MDC but never in the form and manner of a libel claim to the tune of US$500 000.00 as it turned out to be.

He hurriedly referred his stooge reporters to the Attorney General’s wife Josephine Tomana who is the Zimpapers legal affairs manager for legal counselling and reassurances that their case is in good and loyal Zanu PF cadres sphere of influence and will bring no harm to the scribes in their individual capacity.

But the scribes as well as Charamba have deeper running fears from this suit than meets the eye.

Charamba in his latest Nathaniel Manheru instalment in the Herald chose a headline that reveals his innermost fears.

“Tsvangirai: Between wild gale and prosperous winds,” led the article in the herald 31 January 2009. Substitute name “Charamba” in place of Tsvangirai and the fear factor is located in the right place.

“Largely, Zanu- PF gives, MDC gets, never mind with what amount of noise this transition takes place,” he cynically jibed in reference to the power position between Zanu PF and MDC in the GPA which is analogous to the power position between himself and Zanu PF except that MDC can force Zanu PF to change against Charamba’s will and advice to the contrary.

But the point was not about the balance of power between Zanu PF and MDC per se. Rather it was about Charamba’s fears of possible consequences of MDC-T assuming power at a time he was facing litigation over abuse of State privileges against one of Tsvangirai’s top strategists.

To understand this you have to see through how he invokes Mugabe’s power by disclosing the strategy that supposedly “won” SADC hearts and minds at the 26 January 2009 meeting of Heads of SADC States.

He advances the trump card was the “mature representatives from Zanu-PF and BDP” meeting in Kasane, which was beyond the intelligence of the MDC.

All lies of course because Zanu PF won nothing at the SADC meeting and if anything the party lost the desired leeway to form an exclusive government when concessions it thought were minor were enough to cause the MDC to accept positions in the government thereby diluting it to be inclusive.

With that acceptance came the real threat on Charamba. He will have to report to Tsvangirai the “prosperous wind” advised by a litigious Biti the “wild gale.”

Any discerning senior Civil servant at Charamba’s level would want a brighter looking relationship with politicians in government than this.

Reporting to a Prime Minister advised by one’s litigant is a frighteningly daunting prospect especially when past relations with the Prime Minister to be have been frosty.

Charamba therefore had to throw wild punches at perceived Tsvangirai advisors that convinced him to accept the Prime Minister’s job that he thought he had done enough to dissuade him from ever taking up.

But Tsvangirai is reputed for reckless political courage. Against Charamba’s insider advice he and his party decided its time to take the Zimbabwe democracy struggle into the comfort zones of Zanu PF in government circles.

It is a frightening decision for the Zanu PF compromised senior Civil servants. Where does the courage by the MDC and Tsvangirai to plunge into Zanu PF territory derive from?

Is it Botswana, Tanzania and Zambia’s or America’s presidents? Even if they are not involved it is necessary for Charamba to place a wedge between them and the MDC and its leader so that they will know what Mugabe thinks of them but can never say in public but through Charamba.

In the likely event these SADC leaders were not behind influencing Tsvangirai then it is his those aides that accompanied him to the 26 January SADC meeting and mobilised the impromptu 3000 morons that converged at Harvest House to show support for this horrendous development and the best way to deal with that is to create fictional dislocation between those in MDC that were in South Africa and those in MDC that remained at home.

This is the divide and rule that worked in 2005 and it is likely to produce similar results before Tsvangirai is sworn into office.

But the 2005 renegades are now languishing in political wilderness they have been condemned to by Tsvangirai and unless their stature is spruced up then the chances of motivating another revolt against Tsvangirai will be remote.

So Charamba reasons that Prof Mutambara went to Davos to exact revenge of his electoral losses and political discord with Tsvangirai as if he is now both Mugabe and Mutambara’s spokesperson.

But fact remains these are all divide and rule antics Charamba is employing ostensibly to defend Mugabe and Zanu PF when in reality it is for his own protection.

Zanu PF conceded that the appointments of Mr Johannes Tomana as Attorney General and Gideon Gono as Reserve Bank Governor and the 10 Provincial Governors are subject to JOMIC review and possible nullification.

What would be the implication of such a possibility on Charamba and his libellous stooges at the Herald?

Charamba is frightened to the marrow about this defamation suit from Biti.

That was the real issue in his instalment this week.

He urges Biti to break ranks with Tsvangirai form another opposition party and access waiting British sponsorship in league with imagined Rhodies with an axe to grind with Mugabe and Zanu PF over repossessed farms and supported by foreign sponsored NGO’s, intellectuals and the ZCTU.

The development would leave Tsvangirai to dry at the mercy of Mugabe and Zanu PF.

Such naivety on Charamba’s part is unbelievable.

Why would the ZCTU align with intellectuals when its membership is the downtrodden undereducated workers?

Secondly why would Biti of all people in the MDC entertain thoughts of abandoning a Party he has strenuously rebuilt from the ashes of the 2005 split at a time when he is likely to gain rewards for his sterling efforts and consolidate a party with a claim to a significant State political financing grant that he has operated without for nearly 4 years now?

If anything Biti would relish leaving Zanu PF in the sun to dry and beg him for mercy for their abuse towards him over the last decade.

Charamba would be the last suitable advisor for Biti in that regard.

Mugabe is the one who has shown that he is nothing without Tsvangirai and that position is unlikely to change because they will be together in an inclusive government which would collapse and trigger the frightening prospect of a Zanu PF unwinnable election the very moment anyone from Zanu PF misbehaves.

If anything Charamba is in the same position with Zanu PF in that Biti’s suit against the flagship herald he has routinely abused to advance Zanu PF interests may be forced to close shop by the suit in which case he may be sacrificed by Zanu PF to save the publication.

The wise words from Stanislaw Lec are instructive for Charamba in this instance.

“When you jump for joy, beware that no one moves the ground from beneath your feet.”

The Hon Senator, The Professors and The Hon Speaker- the real intentions

pic. Prof AGO Mutambara and Prof Jonathan Moyo and Emmerson Mnangagwa the man behind the project

Senator Coltart correctly observes that “in any democratic country the office of Speaker is crucial in establishing and maintaining the integrity of Parliament.”

Despite his gloating about Paul Themba Nyathi’s integrity Zimbabweans know that Paul Themba Nyathi was the ringleader in the MDC split of 2005 and was uncompromising in articulating his ideological differences with Morgan Tsvangirai and those that remained loyal to him.

That is not the hallmark of neutral person. He is bigoted, dogmatic and pedantic in his approach to issues of conviction and would have made a speaker in the mould of other bigots like Didymus Mutasa.



Many Zimbabweans sighed in relief when they learned he had been soundly defeated in the Speakership election.

It is not clear on what basis did Senator Coltart believe a faction with a paltry 10 MP’s in a 210 chamber would win an election for such an important position as the Speakership given his denial that the faction not coalesced with either of the two Parties that had most of the seats.

“In other words notwithstanding the joint history and the support given to Morgan Tsvangirai's candidacy in the runoff, much of the focus of the negotiations was on the intra MDC party dispute, rather than on presenting a common front against ZANU PF,” revealed the Senator.

But earlier he had supported an opinion by faction Secretary General that suggested the faction would not be negotiated for by anyone and had severed ties with Tsvangirai the minute he pulled out of the runoff.

What support did Tsvangirai get from the faction in a runoff campaign that never was? Senator Coltart must not forget that we have not forgotten the resolutions of his faction on 20 August 2008 that supported the Zanu PF position in power sharing negotiations than it did Tsvangirai.

In any event by trying to land the most powerful position in Parliament the faction was trying to stage a coup on Tsvangirai’s MDC with the most Parliamentarians elected to that August House.

The desire to oust Tsvangirai and or outdo his MDC Party has been the bonding that gel the faction leadership. It will always be paramount on the faction’s political agenda for as long as Tsvangirai remains at the helm of the Party.

“A sizeable number of MDC T MPs were very happy that he had been nominated and indicated that they would vote for him,” falsely claimed Senator Coltart.

Which ones in particular would want to defect to a faction they had trounced in elections in constituencies it had bragged unrivalled support hitherto?

The only defections that are rational and are unavoidable are from the MDC PF faction to the more popular MDC led by Tsvangirai if those that got elected this time around entertain any chances of being re-elected in the next elections.

“Ironically the response from ZANU PF was that they believed that the MDC T would not be able to get more than 96 of its MPs into Parliament (because of their understanding that 4 MPs were in either exile or in hiding) and because of this they would be able to elect a ZANU PF MP as Speaker. It was only at 10 a.m. on Monday the 25th August 2008 that we learned that ZANU PF were not going to put up a candidate (when they realised that the MDC T had managed to get virtually all its MPs into the House) and that they would vote for Paul Temba Nyathi,” stated Senator Coltart.

Nothing can be further from the truth than this crap. The only reason why the MDC PF was bold enough to field Paul Themba Nyathi was because they had been assured of Zanu PF support.

Added to that was the assurance the faction had been given that the 4 MDC MP’s in hiding would be arrested on sight at Parliament therefore Nyathi had an assailable backing from the Zanu PF and MDC PF MP’s even if a few Zanu PF MP’ decided not to vote for him.

“On the evening of Sunday the 24th August a meeting of the MDC T Parliamentary caucus was held and its members were threatened with expulsion and the loss of their Parliamentary seats if they voted for Paul,” Senator Coltart disclosed.

But we are too familiar that it was infact his faction that resolved that on 20 August 2008 to gag its MP’s who had protested the pact with Zanu PF and threatened them with expulsion if they did not tow the line by voting against Nyathi.

“If anyone doubts the truth of this the fact remains that when the vote for Speaker was conducted MDC T MPs were obliged to show their ballots to MDC T MP and Vice President Thoko Khupe prior to voting.

There is both video evidence and the testimony of MPs to support this allegation. I understand that the allegation is not even denied by the MDC T; one MDC MP spoke at a meeting with church leaders in Harare last week and confirmed the allegation. They were forced to disclose their vote because of the well founded fear that many MDC T MPs would vote for Paul,” he further disclosed.

That opened and closed the case as far as the Senator was concerned. But of course the testamentary MP from the MDC T’s name is not disclosed because there is no such testimony in Coltart’s hands.

Further the video evidence he alludes to is not in the public domain and whoever has it is now supposed to doctor it to reflect this version that MDC T MP’s were coerced to show their ballots to Thoko Khupe.

It would be interesting to watch the video and hear the words Thoko Khupe used to coerce the MP’s to disclose to her who they had voted for. In any event even if they did, which has now been denied in opposition papers filed of record, the applicants still have the onerous burden of proving that those that disclosed the vote would have voted otherwise.

Since they are falsely alleged to have disclosed marked ballots, it is evident the mark was not placed under supervision by anyone and in any event the voting had already taken place in secret before it was published.

No sane Court can be expected to accept the trivia that voters were persuaded to vote as they did in the privacy of a booth exclusively reserved for their use when voting by threats of expulsion from the Party they represented in elections that were marred by violence which have no viva voce or written evidence of having occurred.

Assuming for once the ballots were published as alleged by applicants, which has been denied under oath, applicants still have to prove that the numbers that did so were substantial enough to have altered the outcome of the election in their favour if they had not displayed their vote.

The applicants also have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were prejudiced in any material way by the outcome of the election deserving of restitution in the form of the remedy they seek.

If they seek nullification of the result they will have to seek a further remedy of either declaring the looser winner or alternatively a rerun of the election under secretive conditions which are no longer possible to recreate in a Parliament where it is known that Zanu PF MP’s voted for Nyathi and will do so again in the rerun and likewise MDC MP’s for the MDC candidate.

The Court is unlikely to entertain an application that seeks leave of the Court for Professor Mutambara and his National Executive Council to discipline or threaten to discipline MP’s in its control for having voted against a candidate from their formation as that would set a dangerous precedent in Parliamentary democracy and defeat the very cause upon which the application is premised.

The applicants have the near impossible mission to convince the Court that the action they have resorted to is representative of the common position of Parliament on the election given that they are rooting for a loser, who personal has not complained about the election process nor has signalled support for the ill conceived application.

To succeed they need to produce affidavits showing that Parliament in its majority is against the outcome of the election which is impossible given two of the applicants represent a minority faction in parliament with inadequate numbers to win an election unless they have proof that they have support of Zanu PF MP’s who will not vote in any other direction in the privacy of a secluded booth and the other is a lonely independent MP.

More challenging will be the onus on the applicants to convince the High Court that it has jurisdiction over Parliamentary disputes given the precedent of the Dzikamai Mavhaire, “Mugabe must go” jibe, the Sydney Malunga “you are all morons” snide, the Margret Dongo “you are Mugabe’s wives” accusation and most pertinently the Chinamasa/Mutasa/Bennett fiasco and how they were disposed of by Parliament.

Because of its Constitutional existence Parliament like the Presidency and the Judiciary, is impossible to prosecute in public courts before domestic remedies in its constitution have been exhausted.

To challenge an internal parliamentary electoral process in open court will be impossible unless remedies in its Privileges Immunities and Powers which are recognised in the Constitution have been exhausted by the aggrieved.

As an example, the High Court has on numerous occasions refused to entertain applications by aggrieved employees on nothing else than that they have not exhausted remedies in their Codes of Conduct or the Labour Court, which is far less compelling than the Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities that the respondent Speaker has invoked.

The case will collapse at this early hurdle in its way and it will not be necessary for the Court to enquire into the merits of the matter.

Another issue unfavourable to the applicants is the reputation of Prof. Jonathan Moyo. He is highly litigious and is involved in multiple cases before the High and Supreme Courts and may attract a debilitating Court Costs Guarantee for this ill advised matter before he is entertained.

After losing this cause Prof Moyo must expect backlash litigation over his unresolved cases involving misappropriation of public funds at the Ford Foundation in Kenya and as Minister of Information.

A Tsvangirai led government will not stop his extradition to face trial in Kenya if Prime Minister Odinga requests same.

Coltart must be prepared to disclose the nature of financial moral and political support he landed Tsvangirai during the runoff and may end up in the dock for the nefarious activities he undertook under the false pretence he was fundraising for Tsvangirai.

The other two co-applicants must realise that their current action will be recounted when next they seek re-election and the prospects of re-election are remote.


Finally if Coltart did not enjoy fomenting the animosity he has through his ill conceived attempt to reverse a people’s rare Parliamentary victory he must be prepared for the ripple effects.

In functional democracies people do not expect losers to take charge of determining how power devolving from the electoral process will be exercised and by whom it will be exercised as they will have decided that.

For Coltart to endorse the involvement of losers in his faction in power sharing negotiations over people’s will is a indictment of what kind of a democrat he is.