Justice and Democracy

Contents: -

Political, Democracy, Justice (Containing accounts of Human Right infringements),
Legal Advice and Opinion of Note, Conclusion, Qualifications for comment, Requirements to proceed to the International Court, Dedication. 


Whilst a status quo continues to exist, a succession struggle within Zanu PF, fragments the party. The opposition party remains split as predicted being founded by opportunists and, is not and has never been a serious long term option to stabilise and lead the country.

Note: - The opposition party was formed with the funding of the former white farmers panicking at the prospect of losing their farms. This situation was manipulated via a draft constitution designed to protect two Supreme Court Judges from dismissal in a legal administration, that had become a legal Mafia of note. (Unknown to the general public, there was already an updated, amended constitution in 1996 readily available at the local Government Printers) Whilst much inflammatory rhetoric passed between Zimbabwe, Britain and the USA, the other key players with hidden agendas, incredible as it may seem, went unnoticed.

Ironically, were it not for the “no” vote to the ‘draft constitution’ and subsequent funding of the opposition party by the farming community the current President would have retired in terms of the draft as he wished.

In the short term it is likely that there will be extreme violence and civil unrest leading to extensive loss of life unless Britain and the USA resume economic support for government and the local economy. It is probable that the opposition factions will join hands, it being the only way of acquiring international funding, which will further inflame the situation. There will inevitably be violence at any election with the death or resignation of the current President. 
If the First World and its Financial organs address the problems in the Zimbabwe economy on an urgent basis there is a chance of a peaceful transition or election otherwise, any new government will be short lived and Zimbabwe will continue to slide towards civil strife and Civil War. 


Democracy cannot exist within most third world countries and is considered by academics and men of vision to be of secondary importance to a “system of Justice” or channel of complaint coupled with, social justice.
How may Democratic elections even take place where there is no rule of law? How may anything be Democratic when there is no avenue of complaint? Whilst the International Community place responsibility for the rule of law on the Head of the respective Third World government ultimately, the rule of law is policed by the courts, in many cases out of the control of its respective government.

We seek to impose democracy on people we state in our Parliaments need food aid, have no income, no access to acceptable medical help, no avenue of complaint, access to courts or, affordable transport, and, wonder that they are easily intimidated or vote for those who supply them with food.

We spend millions promoting democracy, to give the person who cannot afford a newspaper or meal a vote, who will still have no avenue of complaint, civil justice and remain poor.

In real terms, elections in Zimbabwe were excellent when compared to other third world countries such as Nigeria especially given the economic state of the country. Although unreported there was violence on both sides by supporters and organisers and, by way of example, security forces were called in to Mashonaland West Province to counter an attack by truck loads of opposition supporters in the rural areas in apparent retaliation for violence in Harare by pro government supporters.

At one polling station in the rural areas prospective voters were waylaid on route by groups of government supporters in morning and by opposition supporters in the afternoon. By no means perfect, on the ground it appeared relatively even. 
There is International Criticism of police action at demonstrations where the prime objective of the demonstration was to close down the Zimbabwe economy and its commercial/ industrial sector, stating that "the demonstration will continue until Government resigns" seemingly, in apparent accord with International Democratic Principals in the First World. Demonstrators intimidated businesses and supermarkets to close, or face being vandalised.
Conversely, in Britain, truck drivers demonstrated in retaliation to fuel increases forming a blockade at the Oil Refineries - presumably considered a threat to the economy, the British Army were called in to remove same with little adverse media reaction. 
In viewing Democracy in Zimbabwe there is a need to put things into perspective, to appreciate that almost all Human Rights Organisation locally, including Amnesty International, fell under the direct control of an opposition party MP. Even the writer, an independent, was vehemently told to fall under the same umbrella.
Had the local Human Rights Organisations been independent, had International News Media Organisations such as the BBC not been given a specific budget for 'counter propaganda' by the British Government in respect of Zimbabwe, then, Democracy in Zimbabwe would have been easier to assess. 
Jack Straw in the Commons 01/07/04 on Zimbabwe
"So along with the rest of the international community, we are offering political and practical support to civil rights workers, lawyers defending those persecuted by the state, human rights activists, trades unionists and others working for peaceful change.I should however put on record, Mr Speaker, that Mugabe's attempts to paint the Opposition MDC as British 'stooges' are both ridiculous and typical - and are a further attempt by him to undermine those who seek a better future for all Zimbabweans."
In apportioning accountability, is there not a need to assess the international democratic principals and dangers of a first world country giving 'practical support' to activists, trade unionists etc. in a foreign country, thus promoting, a change in a Foreign Government.
By way of example, if a Third World country thought that the funding of politics and politicians by Multinationals in a First World country was devoid of democratic principal, and gave "practical support" to all activists to destabilise the First World Government whilst simultaneously maintaining a diplomatic mission there.
Would the UN and First World consider this 'seeking a better future' for the inhabitants of that particular First World Country in the promotion of Democracy or, an act of war or terrorism? 
Could not any government faced with such an onslaught justly claim that, any act in its defence is in defence of Democratic Principal.
In viewing Democracy in Zimbabwe there is a need to revisit the Draft Constitution  here, we had a unique and the unparalleled act of a Statesman. Where, a President of a Third World country went out to the people for opinion on what should be contained in the Constitution of their country, the ultimate democratic act, for feedback from the poor and underprivileged and, it was hi-jacked by the law itself who maintained British Government support.  

More fully described in the section on Justice, here we had a situation where the Judiciary negotiated a position whereby they could never be fired, considered by the 'legal mafia' the prime objective of the draft constitution, the only winners.
The President was required to appoint a Prime Minister who could only be removed on resignation or the removal of the President himself. The President was also restricted to one more term of office.
In a further act of a Statesman, the President of Zimbabwe supported the adoption of same.

The white farmers were to lose their land with compensation in apparent negotiated exchange for the job security of two judges and the ruling legal clique.  

It is unlikely, that any member of the public of any race in Zimbabwe would recommend that its Judiciary couldn't be fired given their track record and the state of the Zimbabwe Courts. Why did the general public get so involved in putting a constitution together something even Britain hasn't done? Why was it more popular than an election? Why did it become a national priority, stir the heart of every Zimbabwean irrespective of race or creed, when local lawyers and Britain seemed happy with the Zimbabwean Law?

It was because the people felt there was no Justice, the land issue was unresolved, the courts were inaccessible to over 99% of the populace, the remaining 1% of the populace faced the trauma of court impropriety and, there was no avenue of complaint as a result.  

In respect of the above, the Heads of State of many First World Countries need to consider following his example, producing an updated Constitution or simply a Constitution based on feedback from the ever changing face of their Nationals. A move that would counter voter apathy and by so doing bring those First World countries back to the basic principals of democracy.   

Simply put, where the voter turnout is poor, can this ever be a majority vote? Perhaps all political parties have lost their way and instead of considering a 'mandatory vote' (against all democratic principal), they should be considering a public 'veto' vote requiring, all parties to go back to the drawing board and rethink unpopular policy. Mayhap many voters who traditionally vote for the same party would feel it appropriate to use a veto vote, thus illustrating just how many voters simply vote out of duty feeling, there is limited choice.   
In the situation where the percentage of 'none voters' and/or spoiled votes could swing an election to more than one party, it should be democratically mandatory to hold a re-election. If, the UN and its members consider a veto vote democratic then their voting public should democratically be afforded the same consideration.
The writer, a victim of violence himself, seeks not to minimise any Human Rights infringement but simply the need to adopt the principal of fairness in any deliberation.


Without Justice, Democracy may not exist. It is the least expensive to implement and the most cost effective to the First and Third World for a multitude of reasons.

Due to the inaccessibility of the courts, the general public has no voice and this is why we have so many military coups and civil wars throughout the third world leading to violent demonstration and terrorism. Courts have become about money and corruption instead of justice. The lack of social justice in the Third World is quickly translated to envy and anger of First World lifestyle and wealth, a cause of terrorism and instability World Wide.  

Whilst the First World demand an Independent Judiciary, it is essential to monitor the Administration of Justice and the Judiciary in Third World countries. Simply put, there is a relatively small legal base in Zimbabwe and amongst other Third World countries which precludes, the “dog eat dog” situation between legal practitioners that exists within the larger legal fraternities striving for promotion and fame in order to command greater fees, such as in the EU countries or South Africa. Within the small legal base controlling cliques form, cover-ups occur, descending to organised crime and corruption as, in the case of Zimbabwe.  

Seeing opportunities, criminal organisations and drug cartels strive to control the system of Justice thereby controlling economies and Governments.  

What should have happened at Independence is the formation of a Higher Court within the body of the Commonwealth where member states could iron out differences and sensitive cases be heard. Three Judges could have been chosen at random to visit each member country and listen to complaints (even from governments), thus monitoring the quality of Justice in each member state and providing the deterrent. So very simple, considerably less expensive and, more humanitarian than sending in foreign armies to keep the peace with a bullet.  

Imagine, the lives saved, the subsequent reduction in Human Rights infringements, for just a fraction of a percent of the cost of the eventual military occupation by the UN and other peacekeeping forces.   Members of the public should have been co-opted onto the Committees and Council of the Law Society to act as a Consumer Council of Law, to have powers of veto and to ensure fair play between legal practitioners and law firms whilst protecting public interests.

Sadly, it is a scenario yet to be researched by the Law Universities of note in the First World because, they simply don't experience the problems that develop within a small legal base in Third World countries.   It is thus that the "Independence of the Judiciary" may lead to crime, control by drug cartels, governments or organised crime and the eventual collapse of Third World countries and their economies.  

Whilst colonies, the courts were subjected to a sort of side appeal (submission for pardon to the Governor, himself accountable to the Crown and the UK Parliament) or, appeal to the House of Lords. Local Justice in the colonies was always monitored and never independent. In Zimbabwe, as in many former colonies, the indigenous population were afforded village justice or utilised a court presided over by a District Commissioner.  

At Independence there were, and still are, insufficient Magistrate’s Courts and High Courts, previously only catering for the relatively small white minority. Even were there sufficient courts, the indigenous population do not have the funds to employ lawyers and it is thus, the courts became inaccessible. Whilst legal aid has been muted, this is hard to attain and only attracts inexperienced lawyers and those in the position of being unemployable by both government and the large law firms, wealthier experienced lawyers have no interest in pro-bonus work.  

Making matters worse, due to the ‘Land Issue’, minority rights could not be inserted into the 'Lancaster House Constitution' at Independence or for that matter even muted, as it may have rendered void, the agreement between Britain, the USA and warring factions regarding the transference of land to the proposed Zimbabwe Government in 1990. Simply put the white population were a minority and had occupation of the farmland.  

Again, due to the above, there was a need for the existing Judiciary to remain in control giving the whites’ reassurance and, it was thus, that Mugabe ran the Government and Smith effectively continued to control Justice. Justice is, in reality, almost everything, including the economy. While governments may make the laws, Justice interprets same.  

It was unconscionable that Judges who had previously sworn allegiance to the Smith Government with its racist views could now simply swear allegiance to an Independent Government with opposite views the next day and consider they would retain public respect.  

There were in fact only one or two Judges that felt it inappropriate and those were a great loss to Zimbabwe as they cold have been utilised in an advisory capacity having illustrated legal integrity, virtually unknown in local legal circles. By comparison the writer, a very ordinary man, had remained a British Citizen throughout, feeling that his Oath of Allegiance to the Queen expressly prohibited him from swearing allegiance to the Smith UDI Government.  

It is possible to retain ones integrity and be considered a statesman as, was the writer, in a written report to the President of Zimbabwe on a Presidential hearing before a Magistrate which found against a Government Ministry, in which the writer was the sole witness.  

Without monitoring, the Judiciary would either be controlled by Government or succumb to the temptations of organised crime and corruption as is the case in many Third World countries. It was only a relatively short time before the ruling leadership of the Administration of Justice and the Judiciary chose the latter course with direct connection to very serious crime, including murder. Judges clerks were known to such senior persons within the Ministry of Justice as the late Personal Assistant to the Minister, a lawyer in his own right, as the Judges ‘bag man’, the one who receives the bribe.  

In Zimbabwe the Law Society became about cover-ups governed by a clique of untouchable senior lawyers. It became a powerful legal Mafia with connections to the underworld, which extended to such crimes as first degree murder. The police were powerless and those members of the public within the knowledge had no respect for the court or law as a result.  

Any legal practitioner who challenged the leaderships authority would either never practise law in Zimbabwe again or be forced to leave the country. In order to protect the image of the law, cover-ups would be effected, 'criminal lawyers', those that got caught, would be made to close their practise and leave the country to protect the clique and legal fraternity from the adverse publicity of a trial. Conversely, those legal practitioners that covered up for senior legal practitioners by committing perjury in court were recommended and elevated to the bench.  

It was commonplace for crime to be covered up. By way of example, the police in one case arrested a drug dealer of Portuguese extract who was refused bail. The accused claimed his lawyer arranged his release by bribing the magistrate and prosecutor thus securing his release without police knowledge. Laterally, he shot and killed a young girl in his car and set the car alight in an attempt to stage his death prior to his court hearing, leaving the country with false documents as reported in the national news media.  

If Government tried to interfere, the international community would have been up in arms, supported by such international bodies as Amnesty International insisting on the "Independence of the Judiciary".   It is thus a rift between the Zimbabwe Government and the Judiciary developed over the 20 years since Independence when, almost unbelievably, the white minority still controlled justice. This also played a vital, negative, part in the Land Issue giving the overall picture to some, when coupled the funding of the opposition political party by white farmers, of a return to the UDI of the former Smith Regime.  

For the sake of brevity the writer lists a few of the commonplace problems of the High Court below about which he retains absolute evidence in the form of tape recordings, original edited transcripts and/ or eyewitness accounts.  

i)  Editing of High Court transcripts by Judges.  

ii)  Cover - ups of gross unprofessional conduct by senior Judges. (In terms of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, It is a requirement that such conduct is reported to the Law Society along with the appropriate file of record, non-compliance is an offence)  

iii) Cover - up of the murder of the former Head of Legal Affairs (a personal friend, once the youngest ever magistrates in Zimbabwe, a former Advocate General and Head of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Justice.) by the Chief Justice, Large Law Firm and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. An Advocate now resident in South Africa personally monitored the murder. (A local CatholicHospital had involvement with its death wing. -The writer was told personally by the Chief Justice in chambers whilst suggesting financial incentive that I couldn't help the man now, he was dead, that I should put it behind me and regard it as a "casualty of the law").  

iv) Corruption. An offer via an Advocate and Legal Practitioner from the then Head of Bar and opposition Advocate, of a guaranteed win in the total amount claimed (value equivalent to 1.5 million pounds) in exchange for dropping a High Court complaint against him in his personal capacity for unprofessional conduct. Later, by the then Chief Justice, in Supreme Court Chambers, of unlimited preferential finance at cost for the writers projects from any Zimbabwe Commercial Bank in exchange for; the writer dropping a multi-million High Court civil action and backing off the Head of Bar. (Original hand written police statement recorded by an Inspector in CID on the instruction of the Senior Assistant Commissioner, Officer in Charge of CID, and other evidence, dated, a matter of weeks before the former Chief Justices resignation.)   I believe it to be a great honour, a sort of "degree in honesty", to be offered an effective bribe by a Chief Justice, a man with the ultimate power of life and death. It gave me immense pride to be referred to as "a one man threat to the Administration of Law in Zimbabwe". Which meant, that I had taken on all a countries lawyers, the law society, law firms and Judges, everything they had to offer over a decade, and won, without even possessing a law degree and simply reliant on truth.  

v)  "Sensitive" cases in High Court were not those concerning minors or national security as one may expect, they were about legal practitioners impropriety where the public and news media were barred, local newspapers threatened. It is not just the Zimbabwe Government who control part of the news media and, they have no choice if they want to attempt a defence, it is the legal fraternity with presumably the very real threat of no legal support, representation - bad debts, etc. Court tapes would be interfered with to the extent that witness’s court microphones would be switched off and the transcript edited. (Evidence available in the form of original tapes and transcripts.) There would be a legal practitioner appointed to question any member of the public in court asking what his or her interest in the case was etc. thus intimidating the member of the public to leave.  

vi)  An arrangement whereby senior legal practitioners within the ruling clique can choose their Judge and the appointment of a clerk of court to facilitate same.  

The writer made complaint and asked the assistance of the then lady Administrator of Law in researching the situation via the School of Jurisprudence at OxfordUniversity. In the United Kingdom and to the Chairman of the International Bar Association after his recent visit to Zimbabwe.  

Senior Lawyers in Zimbabwe would even hold discussions with such bodies as IMF and World Bank prior to those bodies addressing Government giving the system of "Justice" total control on the economy with a practising legal practitioner on the board of all financial institutions/ banks.  

Making matters worse there was British government support for the Judiciary since Independence stemming from the Zimbabwe Governments initial policy of socialism at Independence.  
Even the operations of the Department of Psychological Warfare in South Africa where the Former Minister of Home Affairs in the Smith Government, Ted Sutton-Price, was consultant, were overlooked by Britain. 

In the late eighties, years after Independence, I spoke with Ted in Pretoria and asked how he could do what he was doing to Zimbabwe, pointing out, that it affected all races including, his former friends and colleagues. He said he was effectively doing the same job, using the same blacks and contacts that he paid out of the slush fund whilst the Rhodesian Minister of Home Affairs to destabilise the then "terrorists".  

He admitted playing a part in the Ndebele massacre in Matabeleland, indirectly financing and training opposition Ndebele's to oppose President Mugabe thus destabilising the Zimbabwe Government. Because it was a political situation and Zimbabwe had inherited an integrated army, the Mugabe Government would have no choice but send its guerrilla trained, loyal fifth brigade, thus ensuring a political clash and adverse publicity thereby forcing President Mugabe to change policy.  

The writer told him that he had previously ignored the Zimbabwe Government's televised complaints of economic sabotage by South Africa as ludicrous political propaganda; I simply didn't see the benefit to South Africa, to which he smiled and boasted that it was a job well done. There were direct connections between the legal fraternity in Zimbabwe and the South African Psychological Warfare Department.  

Today such acts would, without doubt, be termed terrorism.  

It is a fact that the British MI 6 officers were attached to the Zimbabwe Central Intelligence Organisation. So, for the International media to condemn the now Speaker and former Minister of Justice, Emerson Munangagwa, for his involvement with CIO, is to condemn its former respected Director of British extract and the British MI 6. 

Recently, President Mugabe gave public apology to the Ndebele for the Matabeleland atrocities presumably still unaware of the background. It is important to mention that not just the Ndebele were affected, there were many others caught up in the crossfire, including missionaries.  

Prior to the establishment of the Constitutional Commission in Zimbabwe, the writer volunteered his assistance to the then Minister of Justice, Emerson Munangagwa, being fearful that the Judiciary and leadership of the Legal Fraternity were on a collision course with Government likely to lead to much violence and instability within the country.  

There is a need to stress that I had never met the Minister before, it took courage and determination within the knowledge that there were those locally that would take advantage of the Constitutional Commission and that it would become a power struggle leading to violence. He attached me to his personal assistant, Mr Nyati, where the writer worked on such projects as the proposed Anti-Corruption Bill.  

It is fair to state that through the passage of time the writer became aware of the excellent management skills of the Minister, this was a dedicated man who as opposed to other ministries ran his Ministry well. He provided the much needed balance within the system of Justice although, without direct interference, could do little about the Judiciary themselves.  

His personal assistant, a lawyer and deeply religious man, who had worked with his boss since the days they were in Zambia, would visit me over weekends, travelling on public transport, to work on projects at his own expense and in his own time. As my home at the time was some 50 Kilometres out of the City it illustrated the respect for and the financial administration of, his Minister. Sadly now deceased, he is a great loss to the promotion of Justice in Zimbabwe and to me personally.  

There were thousands of complaints about the Courts and their Judgements and the writer was given the privilege of listening in to some of them. They ranged from the case of a widow from Bulawayo who sold her family home on deed of sale following her husband’s death only ever receiving the first payment to the custody of minor children and corruption.  

In the case of the widow, after some three years she obtained an eviction order from the Bulawayo High Court. The Supreme Court ruled the defendant, appellant in this case, be given the opportunity to make good the original payment contained in the deed of sale without making an order for interest, rent or any form of damages. It was alleged her Lawyer had not followed the correct procedure when making application for the Eviction Order, he had not given defendant the correct quantum of time to make good the payment on top of the two years plus grace already taken by the Defendant.  

Given local devaluation and that it was now about five years after the agreement of sale was signed she was receiving around 10% of real value and still had to pay her legal practitioner, her complaint was additionally of corruption within the court itself.  

Mr Nyati explained he could not interfere with a Judgement of the Supreme Court however; he would try to petition on humanitarian grounds to recommend that there be a Bill prepared allowing her sole right of residence in the property for life. Cases ranged across the whole spectrum from those involving minors across international borders to claims that Judges were banking, had connections to banks that they were ruling in favour of.  

The writer was always in a dilemma concerning the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice in Zimbabwe. There was a real need to improve Justice in Zimbabwe in the best interests of Commerce, Government and the man in the street but, within the parameters of the "Independence of the Judiciary" it was a difficult task to achieve. Handled incorrectly it could bring Justice into further disrepute, create more disrespect for the law and, who would be the replacements? Could they not be worse?  

More important than personal compensation was the concept of ensuring that what had happened to the writer would never again be repeated in the Zimbabwe Courts.  

It is thus the writer publicly requests the assistance of Human Rights Commission to proceed to the International Court in a case against the former Chief Justice, Head of Bar and Law Society of Zimbabwe. By so doing, expose the failings of the system of Justice in the Third World greatly benefiting the Third World and International Community in general in the promotion of peace.  

Crime that emerges from the evidence should, of course, be heard by the same Court in terms of Zimbabwe Law, automatically becoming International Law in this case.  

There are Human Rights infringements in prisons, indeed in society in general but, when these extend to the High Courts, Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts of any country the matter must be substantially more serious.Where may victims go? Who will assist them? Who will listen to them? Who has the authority to intervene with the Independence of the Judiciary if not the UN Human Rights Commission? How may any individual take a case against the Law Society where every lawyer and Judge is a member and they hold it unprofessional for any lawyer to represent you?  

The International community continued to use the Administration of Justice as a source of information and advice whilst the Bar, in neighbouring South Africa, looked sideways at Zimbabwe's Judgements as they circulated through its chambers. Lawyers from South Africa and elsewhere did not have the automatic right to represent a client locally in Zimbabwe and had to first be approved by the Law Society or legal ruling clique having to take local law examinations.  

With a senior lawyer on the board of every major bank in Zimbabwe it was not uncommon for the IMF to seek a meeting with a prominent advocate prior to a meeting with the Zimbabwe Government.
The Legal profession and organised crime had different objectives to the manufacturing and commercial sectors. They operated huge trust funds, some engaging in money laundering, and were interested in short term high interest/ profits as opposed to the commercial/ industrial sector who made long term investment to the benefit of the country and economy.  

Interest on clients trust accounts was split between the lawyer and the law society in terms of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, one of the first, if not the first, Act of Parliament in Zimbabwe. In terms of the Act it would be beneficial to drag conveyancing matters out to the client’s disadvantage, to increase the interest revenue. It was thus that the legal profession are able to legally claim another’s interest in addition to their normal fees that would be fraud in any other profession.  

The above, combined with such secret issues as no right of individual appeal to any court, (technically blocked by rules of court presumably for the protection of the repute of legal practitioners and court officials – rules of court are recommended by the Chief Justice) and, criminals released without appropriate sentence, that the general public lost respect for the law and the police force deteriorated to the concern of regional Interpol, long before, the year 2000.  

Imagine, if a Magistrate didn't wish a case appealed because it may highlight his impropriety he would simply instruct the clerk of court not to process the appeal which was unrecorded in the superior High Court. (Due to the lack of High Court appeal reference numbers an accurate number of the backlog from various Magistrates Courts cannot ever be produced - the writer got the figure of thousands from one Magistrates clerk of one rural court!).

There are currently thousands of appeals out of time at Magistrates Courts throughout the country where the file of record has yet to be prepared. For reasons best known to the local legal fraternity, such bodies, as Amnesty International and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace have yet to make objection or complaint.  

It is commonplace for an individual to complete his prison sentence before his notice of appeal had a set down date; hence prisons are overcrowded with potential innocent. There is no avenue of complaint because there is no system in the superior court of giving appeals a reference number at the time an appeal is submitted. How can you complain without a reference number from the superior court, a sort of invisible case without a file? How does an individual deal with such a situation when even a legal aid application has to be approved by the superior High Court and attached to the file of record, yet to be prepared by the Magistrates Court?  

It is sad that the local division of Amnesty International with connection to the local legal fraternity chose to ignore the absence of appeal rights by an individual, given that individuals were imprisoned without charge or hope of legal representation. By way of example, a visitor from Europe was held in prison for nearly a decade his only crime being that he couldn’t speak English. He was held by immigration officials on arrival at the airport because they couldn’t understand him and, from there escorted to prison.  

It was only by chance that a Judge on a prison visit eight or nine years later asked what his offence was that he was released. The incident subsequently remaining confidential by the legal fraternity raising the question of how many more are in the same predicament.  

This emphasises the need for legal reform.  

There have been hundreds of complaints concerning unfair Judgements by the Supreme Court since Independence made to the Ministry of Justice by individuals and companies, some of which the writer has had the privilege of viewing, which appeared resultant of negligence or corruption.  

Laws passed by Zimbabwe Parliament and Gazetted were often deliberately misinterpreted by the Supreme Court particularly, where they may affect the income of the legal practitioner such as, ‘the right of any individual to represent him/ herself’ accepted in Magistrates Court but unacceptable in the High Court.  

This affected Commerce and Industry where, in the event a small company has a temporary cash flow problem, unable to pay a creditor and cannot afford a lawyer, directors or company secretaries are not permitted to give evidence or explanation in High Court resulting in a fast summary Judgement against the company and its closure. It may be that the company is liquid, in the sense, that it has revenue accruing to it from contracts completed or in progress or/and asset heavy and, would be able to honour payment with interest. This situation is open to abuse.  

It is thus, that the common phrase “return to the rule of law” commonly utilised within the International Community with reference to Zimbabwe is a joke.  

The writer gave evidence privately in the Chairman's office of the Constitutional Commission his evidence being considered ‘sensitive’. The overall theme, the main import of his evidence, was that the commission and proposed Constitution was unimportant, a waste of time and money. That laws suggested there and passed by Parliament would be ignored and misinterpreted in anyway that benefited crime, the legal fraternity and the Judiciary that, unless the situation in the Judiciary and Administration of Law was addressed immediately there would be instability, violence, no hope - the now current situation in Zimbabwe. The then lady Deputy Chairman, lawyers, those present, will bear witness that the writer tried.  

There were others with similar complaints with lawyers from as far afield as the United States of America, suffice to say, the writer failed in his attempts to stop the process of he Draft Constitution, to prevent the obvious violence, political and civil unrest to come.  

It is a matter of record that in terms of the now defunct proposed Draft Constitution, the white farmers lost their land and the President, Mr. Mugabe, lost his powers, having to appoint a Prime Minister and being unable to remove same without his, the Presidents, resignation. (Certain local newspapers/ legal practitioners at the time stated untruthfully that the President could "hire and fire" Prime Ministers at will, thus inciting a no vote at the referendum)  

Again, the corrected version of the Agricultural land clause in the draft is identical to the current Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (16) Act, 2000, Section 16A Agricultural land acquired for resettlement.   Whilst legal advice and the news media interpreted the section as "the Government will take the land without compensation" that is not how it read i.e.  

f. the resources available to the acquiring authority in implementing the programme of land reform;

g. any financial constraints that necessitate the payment of compensation in instalments over a period of time; and

Why discuss resources and payment instalments if you don't intend to ensure the landowner gets paid?  

To President Mugabe's credit and in the act of a statesman he publicly supported this draft. (I hold both the public distribution copy and the departmental copy, as supplied to Ministers as, I was asked for written comment by the personal assistant to the Minister of Justice)  

Why then was there so much publicity, why was a political party, the MDC born? Who benefited from the draft if even the President lost? Fact is that the Judiciary gained powers, they couldn't be fired. Hence, even when Amnesty International made a list of complaints, there was no comment from the legal fraternity and, in particular, our Constitutional Judges.  

Where was the judicial inquiry into why there was a 'no' vote in the referendum, it was after all chaired by the 'Judge President' and handed to the President as a “true interpretation” of what the people wanted? Such an Inquiry may have kept the peace. When has there ever been a Judicial Inquiry in Zimbabwe?   Can it be believed that the Chief Justice was unaware of the contents of the Draft Constitution when the Judge President chaired the Commission?  

Justice Gubbay, the Chief Justice, wrote an article in the "Legal Forum", September 1999, just a month prior to the Constitutional Commission, stating, in effect, that he didn't see why he couldn't judge himself.
Not content with the power of life or death he made effective public application for 'Gods position'.   Extract from Legal Forum, Volume 11, No.3, The Judiciary and Judicial Accountability by A R Gubbay: -  

“The President may effectively suspend the Chief Justice from office by appointing a tribunal even though the grounds for investigating may be trivial. It would be an improvement if the members of the tribunal were appointed by the Chief Justice and not by the President."

The tribunal consists of three members who should have held office as a Judge or legal practitioners of not less than seven years legal standing. (In a small legal base, colleagues, friends and effective employees)  

It is important to consider that this is not the ramblings of a misguided Professor of Law; it is a public statement in a legal publication personally written by the Chief Justice of a Country, the most senior of Constitutional Judges in the run up to a Draft Constitution supposedly about Democracy. It is common cause that it was also written out of apprehension that the President was intending suspend him, presumably an attempt, to change the Law prior to facing same for personal benefit.  

Why did he think he could get away with it?  

This issue of the Legal Forum makes particular interesting reading depicting the anti President and Government sentiment of the Judiciary and legal fraternity. The Attorney-Generals criticism of the inadequate sentence imposed on the three Americans found guilty of attempting to take weapons onto a Swiss Air passenger aircraft and illegal possession of a substantial amount of weapons. Acts today considered absolute terrorism. (They received a lesser sentence than an individual locally could attract for inadvertently failing to renew his/ her gun licence).  

Overall it explains a great deal about the events that followed by the derogatory remarks and allegations of corruption leaving one wondering at the wisdom of Supreme and Constitutional Court Judges placing articles in any publication that prejudges individuals without trial.   The editorial of the legal forum addressed "criticism of the courts" and in particular states a person is not entitled to make an allegation that a Judge has been bribed without evidence. What this editorial did was to concede that there was a problem, that there was public concern about corruption in the courts and suggest in veiled terms the way forward was to make complaint by the public illegal.

In the same issue the following statement is made without supporting evidence: -   "There is a growing awareness that the political and economic crisis that is threatening the very survival of the nation is a result of gross misgovernance and grand corruption by the ZANU-PF government. Zimbabwe is presently steeped deep into a multi- dimensional crisis as the country experiences the worst forms of crony corruption and is governed by a regime which can only be accurately described as a kleptocracy."  

That such a public statement is made by a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Zimbabwe is a public disgrace and illustrates a major problem in the training of “officers of the court” and lawyers. Especially, when he goes to great pains in the same article to state that corruption cannot be legally used in reference to any acts of commission or omission by the President and yet, fails to understand, that the President is a part of the ZANU-PF Government.  

The issue includes sentencing guidelines to all courts for the first time in20 years of independence illustrating concern for their position. Comments such as "this President" and the article "Roads to Nowhere" gives one the impression that there was an attempt to fuel the formation of an opposition party to change the government, which would of course need funding.  

I was present when a white delegate to the Constitutional Commission addressed a group of four irate ladies saying, "We had to adopt it quickly, it had to be done that way to avoid any objections, our objective was to protect Justice Gubbay and McNally, they are our friends, the negotiation went up and down, sadly the farmers had lose and unfortunately Mugabe is in for another term in terms of the draft but, we achieved our objective, in terms of the draft they cannot be fired."  

Note - the original clause as negotiated before correction by government did indeed give the impression of no compensation. Could it be that this original clause was designed to create panic, anti-government sentiment thus creating a ready source of funding for an opposition party by the unsuspecting white farmers? It does seem to the writer to be a little more than convenient that the third reading of the class actions bill was reported and described in the same issue of the Legal Forum depicted above.  

How much did the legal fraternity contribute to the conflict between the Zimbabwe Government and the white farmers? The 'Head of Bar' advised the Commercial Farmers Union executive. Why were legal cases dragged out? Cases to remove settlers from private land proceeded to the Supreme Court represented by the top legal brains in Zimbabwe without, a simple eviction order ever being served on anyone. Again not one case was ever brought in terms of the Fencing Act 1996 which imposes statutory imprisonment on any person who damages or crosses a fence, leaves a gate open or unlocked.  

Why did the Legal Profession and Law Society not advise the general public in the Press that the subsequent referendum was academic? (In terms of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 it is their mandate to "Promote the Law".) Why did they keep this quiet?   That any Constitution would have to be redrafted by the Ministry of Justice into the correct format, approved by the Minister of Justice, put before Parliament and the Parliamentary Legal Committee, corrections made, debated on and then voted in or out and gazetted, like all law. 
That the general public doesn't make the law and, that the Constitution Commission was simply to recommend any changes to Government and Parliament out of suggestion/ complaint/ feedback from/ of the general public, which may or may not be accepted or adopted.  

With respect the general public can't draft and make laws in any country, they have no expertise. The only thing that perhaps could be voted on by the public was whether or not we should change the constitution and that is precisely how the President handled it. You simply can't vote on Acts of Parliament or Bills unless you are a Parliamentarian.  

No matter how you may interpret his other acts, here we had a unique and the unparalleled act of a Statesman. Where, a President of a Third World country went out to the people for opinion on what should be contained in the Constitution of their country, for feedback from the poor and underprivileged and, it was hi-jacked by the law itself who maintained British Government support. 

The Heads of State of many First World Countries need to consider following his example by producing an updated Constitution or simply a Constitution based on feedback from the ever changing face of their Nationals. A move that would counter voter apathy and by so doing bring those First World countries back to the basic principals of democracy. 

Simply put, where the voter turnout is poor, can this ever be a majority vote? Perhaps all political parties have lost their way and instead of considering a 'mandatory vote' against all democratic principal, they should be considering a public 'veto' vote requiring, all parties, to go back to the drawing board and rethink policy.  

Mayhap, many voters who traditionally vote for the same party would feel it appropriate to use a veto vote thus illustrating, just how many voters simply vote out of duty feeling, there is limited choice. Surely, in the case where abstaining voters could swing an election to more than one party, it should be democratically mandatory to hold a re-election. If, the UN and its members consider a veto vote democratic then their voting public should democratically be afforded the same consideration.  

It is unlikely, that any member of the public of any race in Zimbabwe would recommend that its Judiciary couldn't be fired given their track record and the state of the courts.  

Why did the public get so involved in putting a constitution together something even Britain hasn't done? Why was it so popular? Why did it become a national priority when local lawyers and Britain seemed happy with the law in Zimbabwe?   It was because the people felt there was no Justice, the land issue was unresolved, the courts were inaccessible to over 99% of the populace and there was no avenue of complaint as a result.  

Rules of Court recommended by the Judiciary and Chief Justice made it effectively impossible for an individual to appealagainst a sentence either in Magistrates Court or High Court in spite of the Zimbabwe Government, via Act of Parliament, giving the individual the right to represent himself and his company in any Court. Still today, in terms of the Rules, no individual may set down a Constitutional or any matter in the Supreme Court - this way, no complaint can be made about any lawyer or "Officer of the Court" without their consent and cover-ups are irreversible. 
This situation cannot be addressed by the Zimbabwe Government as it is the mandate of the Judiciary to recommend changes in the rules of court contained in the High Court Act presumably drafted on the recommendations of the local legal fraternity.  

Today, the local Legal fraternity complains that Judges are Government appointees and yet, made no complaint when they were publicly anti-Government supporting the opposition party and/ or crime.  

There is a significant need, a great need, for strict enforcement of existing safeguards within the law. For the overhaul of the Legal Practitioners Act incorporating severe penalties and addressing the issue of full compensation to the client by the erring legal practitioner. Thus arriving at the situation whereby an "Officer of the Court", within the knowledge that a complaint may be made against him or her, reports themselves to the Law Society.  

In a country, yet to experience Justice that, so many of all races have fought to behold over decades, there is a serious need to implement and safeguard a system of Justice for all, deservedly funded by Britain.  

Provide a good system of Justice and you provide a monitoring mechanism over the law enforcement agencies, in the long term providing law and order. Conversely, to criticise local law enforcement agencies when criminals are simply released after capture by the courts seems, unduly harsh.  

The webmaster would be grateful for any comments, feedback or relevant research material for this web site.
Simply click this link    


a) A senior very reserved local legal practitioner who normally might say something like "I concede that the Law Society is ineffective and could do with a serious shake up".  

On viewing evidence, reading edited transcripts and listening to court tapes stated: -  

"I've heard comments about this sort of thing going on at the Law Society but put it down to bar talk. But physically seeing the evidence......"
(He was very annoyed expressing words to the effect that his career in the law, the reasons he went into law in the first place, had been reduced to nothing.)
"You must get all of this (the evidence) out of the country, scatter it around by tomorrow... If they knew the kind of evidence you had.... they would kill you...."
I replied disbelievingly “Who would kill me?"
He said "The Judges"
I said, "You can’t be serious"
to which he replied whilst looking at an edited transcript "They have no choice"  

He went on to offer to represent me, explaining he would have to resign from his firm to protect them from the backlash and ensure his trust accounts were in good order. I explained that I was appreciative of his offer but he was close to retirement, had a family to consider, he was in a senior position. He should think about it and discuss it with his wife.  

b) The Administrator of Law, OxfordUniversity.  

For reasons best known to the lady administrator, her prime interest was in the correspondence from the Law Society of Zimbabwe. In particular two letters stapled to a High Court Judgement stating “I was justified in the pursuit of my complaint.”  

The first letter was a copy of a letter from the secretary of the Law Society to a legal practitioner stating that both he and I acted improperly and had brought the administration of justice into disrepute. That it was unworthy and unprofessional for any legal practitioner to continue to act for me knowing what I was doing to other legal practitioners. That he would be tarred with the same brush as me. There were in fact two pages of such rhetoric, which was clearly in Contempt of Court.  

The second letter was addressed to me stating " I have been instructed by the "Council of the Law Society" to send the attached correspondence to you for comment.”  

The Chief Justice viewed both letters in Chambers after I had refused to drop the ongoing action in the High Court and accept the incentive and stated in anger "(the Secretary of the Law Society) had no right to let you have sight of that letter".(Not that he had no right to write the letter in the first place!)

I showed him the second letter saying he had been instructed to do so by the Council of the Law Society at which stage the Chief Justice went silent and said "well you can still get a lawyer from South Africa."  

Imagine the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Zimbabwe was advising me that it was accepted I could not get legal representation in Zimbabwe and that I still had the alternate of another country. It was thus that he recommended his friend. He requested that I didn't leave any correspondence in his office, as he didn't want any incriminating evidence lying around in the event he had to hear my appeal.  

At no time was there ever any question or suggestion that I had acted or done anything improper or wrong in fact, in all conversations with Judges, it was accepted that I was being truthful. It happened that Judges would ask in the midst of other cases in the sanctity of chambers, out of curiosity, for the inside story on which particular lawyers were involved in the murder. One Judge even commented "It would be him"  

c) A Lawyer in South Africa recommended by the Chief Justice described as the son of a former Zimbabwean Judge.  

He referred to me as "a one man threat to the administration of law in Zimbabwe" when I phoned for appointment.

After viewing evidence in the company of a junior lawyer and giving me what can only be described as a serious, aggressive and lengthy cross examination, he stated: -  

"This is what is going to happen, I've decided that we will reopen the case at the Law Society ... (Head of Bar) is responsible for everything, forget about all the other lawyers and the Law Firms. He is responsible, he caused it all. He will get three years suspension."

I said “He’s not the kind of individual to take that lying down and, who will take the case, who is going to take him on, there is a serious shortage of lawyers with backbone in Zimbabwe".
He replied "You will find he will accept it without too much complaint, he needs a break anyway and any firm in Zimbabwe will represent you, take your pick. This firm has strong connections, great influence in Zimbabwe and with the Law Society - my wife even works for Air Zimbabwe. If you are not happy I'll fly up and do it myself."
I said "What about my financial claim in High Court"
He said, "Forget everything else and get on with your life."
I said "and the murder"
he replied,” I told you ...........(head of bar) is responsible for everything, you can’t do anything to help him now he's dead."
I said, "There is no way I am going to accept that he gets three years suspension for a murder."
I could see that the junior lawyer, his assistant, was visibly upset and shocked. As I packed documents into my briefcase

he said, "Why don't you leave your papers here and let me go through them and study them some more perhaps I can come up with something else".

I refused and left the office with the assistant following me. When we got out onto the street he apologised to me and I told him that he has a choice, there are other jobs, and I couldn't work for or with such a person.  

d) A visiting Advocate from South Africa  

An Advocate from the middle bar in South Africa researching law in Zimbabwe contacted me and read through the transcript and Judgement of the case where the Head of Bar was a Defendant in his own right.  

In reading the lengthy transcript he commented that the Head of Bar was trying to confuse the Judge and had experience, but, what worries him is how he thought he could get away with it?

I asked him what he meant and he answered "Why didn't he just say, something like 'look I don't think I doing anything wrong, but he does, I am quite prepared to renounce agency and withdraw from the matter'. I mean he's acting for and against a client in the same financial year whilst on a retainer to one of the clients, he's not short of briefs.  

In South Africa it would be professional suicide to continue; in fact it would be anywhere. Why did he, how did he think he could get away with it, that's what bothers me?

It happens that we get a few Judgements from Zimbabwe passed around chambers and I recall seeing his name on a few. In future, I'll look sideways at any with his name on and advise others to do the same."  

e)A visiting lawyer from South America  

After reading through documents he told me that in his country they looked up to the legal fraternity here and that's why he came to visit and research. He said he had attended a law society dinner held in his honour the evening before and sat next to the Head of Bar.  

Visibly annoyed, he said, had he read this first he would not even have attended the dinner, sat next to any of them, he had wasted his money coming to Zimbabwe as the law is in a much better state where he has just come from.  

f) A Rabbi of Law in South Africa  

The Rabbi travelled to Zimbabwe to research the writer resultant of one of his patents. The Rabbi maintained that this patent circumvented one of the Jewish laws of their Sabbath something that Jews had been trying to achieve for over two thousand years. In the event that there was no such thing as coincidence within his faith, he wished to try and understand how a non-Jew could achieve this without intimate knowledge of their Laws. Over the passage of time, we became good friends and it thus he became acquainted with the legal nightmare above.  

He agreed to represent me should his credentials/ qualifications be acceptable in Zimbabwe and should I need him, saying, it would be a great honour. This was a man of incredible intellect and wisdom, highly respected by even those individuals of immense wealth and international commercial achievement. A man who was, in his own words, expected to know all Law, to judge any situation, to have the answer. It was hard to believe that anyone could survive his cross-examination without truthful admission and, it was rather a great honour that he agreed without hesitation, to represent me. He is a man who truly possesses the intellect of innocence.  

Having been told of my intent, as a result of the legal ordeal above, to give up design/ invention in favour of promoting Justice for all in Zimbabwe, he stated the following words of wisdom in a telephone conversation of concern: -  

"I find myself wearing two hats. As a man of God I have to support what you intend to do because it is the work of God. But, as your friend, I urge you to reconsider. You have so many gifts, gifts people dream of having, and the only qualities necessary to do what you propose are, courage and truth.
There are many with just those qualities in the world, let someone else with just those qualities do it. At the moment, with your meeting with the Judge and the lawyer in South Africa it may appear they are retreating, that you are winning, but they will regroup, you have no idea how powerful and dangerous the system of Justice is when combined with crime and criminals, examples exist all over the World.
The stronger you get, the stronger they will get until someone gets hurt, somebody dies - it can lead to a war.

In the end, if you win, if you are successful, if you survive, who in Zimbabwe or elsewhere will appreciate what you have done, what you have achieved. Who will really care about a system of Justice for all in the middle of Africa?

If you must do it, then send me your inventions, don't waste your gifts, and I will do all the work, see they are manufactured and collect your royalties. That way people all over the world will benefit and you will have an income."

It is indeed, a sad fact of life that the only time that one is likely to be appreciative of the value of Civil Rights and Justice is when one is dispossessed of them.  


Simple policy decisions of the inclusion of a Court of three Judges chosen at random within such organisations as the Commonwealth.  

1.  Appointing three judges at random from member countries to hear complaints in member states about judicial and legal misconduct. To preside over sensitive cases and those between member states, a kind of Federal Court. It is itself a miscarriage of justice to have the final Appeal Court (The Supreme Court) in any country wearing the same hat as the Constitutional Court as is the case in Zimbabwe.  

2.  To ensure a public law library exists within all member states as a minimum human rights standard. (There is no public law library in Zimbabwe and no place where a member of the public can be advised of the format to use when submitting documents to court.) There is no point in the Zimbabwe Government making laws that allow an individual to represent him/ herself and then leaving them without the tools.  

3.  To provide Judges and Magistrates from within member states to initially police and monitor the system and protect the Administration of Justice. (There will be a need to assume initially that all court officials are corrupt or negligent until proved otherwise in order to protect the public.) – The negligence of Court Officials and Officers of the Court is akin to corruption in that both lead to injustice.  

4.  To fund the provision of equipped courts and legal aid (or the provision of trained lawyers by the UN or other International Bodies) in order to provide an avenue of complaint for all.   It is anticipated that the funding of the above will, in the long term, render the use of peace keeping forces and weapons of war superfluous. It additionally will lend itself to the establishment of democratic principals.  

5.  To monitor teaching methods at the Law Faculty of the University of Zimbabwe with a view to creating future ‘officers of the court’. (Currently, lecturers and staff go the extremes of refusing to identify students to the ‘Deputy Sheriff” and his staff making it impossible to serve legal papers and summons on erring students effectively covering up crime in some cases. Written reports available from the Deputy Sheriff.)  

When one considers the cost of the above compared with the cost of military intervention, counter terrorism measures, food and medical aid there is, no alternative.    


The writer cannot claim to understand how it feels to be colonised or deprived of a vote. However, the writer, a layman, claims to be the only person in the history of Law in Zimbabwe and possibly internationally, to have had, all civil and human rights removed in a Court of Law whilst ‘the Complainant’ in a High Court matter before a Judge.  

Having weathered the death threats, the murder of a friend of legal note, resisting an incentive worth the equivalent of over a million pounds sterling in a High Court matter and with the written support of the Minister of Justice, the Ombudsman of Zimbabwe and his Accountant, the Chairman of his respective Institute, to the Judge.  

As the Complainant, he was denied Legal representation, the right to address the court, the right to present his case, the right to cross examine, the right to give evidence and call witnesses under, threat of imprisonment by the then “Head of Bar”, the Defendant in his own right, prior to the hearing. (The Head of Bar, although Defendant, claimed to remain an "Officer of the Court") It was the first time the writer had ever faced a Judge and it was a kind of“legal rape”.  

The case continued in court without the Complainant being permitted to speak under threat of imprisonment.  

He had to watch, in the absence of the Judge and his clerk as the Defendant read out the Judges personal case file and notes, including correspondence from the Ombudsman etc, mockingly, to the open court from the Judges bench. He was made to listen to the Defendant, the Head of Bar, and another legal practitioner commit perjury having been told previously that if he so much as raised his hand to complain he would be held in contempt by the Defendant and jailed. The writer was aware that the Head of Bar had “seized” immense powers over the years.  

It is hard to imagine a matter proceeding in the High Court without the Complainant being allowed to comment or object, under threat of imprisonment.   Whilst the writer, nevertheless, was found “Justified in the pursuit of his complaint” in a Judgement where legal practitioners were made to pay the costs, no action was taken against the Defendant due to “lack of evidence” occasioned, presumably, by the writer and Complainant being prohibited from giving evidence or representing himself.  

Laterally, the writer was made to listen to a lawyer in Chambers angered with the Head of Bar, read out letter after latter of evidence withheld from Court and the Judge saying that “if the Head of Bar did not do an about turn by morning he would drop the lot in the Judges lap, he would go down but he would take the Head of Bar with him.” That he had covered for the Head of Bar both at the Law Society and in Court. When the writer protested he was told it was none of his business and the lawyer concerned laterally, had to close his practise and move to South Africa.  

After subsequent cases where the writer represented himself and personally subpoenaed the Head of Bar and others to Court refusing improper incentives it happened that the writer was the subject of a failed execution.  

Held at gunpoint by hands and feet, a forth assailant hit the writer over the head with an iron bar. Left for dead, injuries sustained including damage to both eyes, memory loss, requiring facial reconstruction and having to wear a plaster cast face for some time taking over a year to recover, if one ever recovers, it was treated as attempted murder by the Zimbabwe Republic Police. The former Chief Justice and Head of Bar still remain official police suspects.  

It was this same “Head of Bar” that represented and advised the Commercial Farmers Union in the “Land Issue”, that seemed to attract the support of the British Government.  

I claim “a victory in morals” and the expertise, the right, to make comment.    


It would be ethically impossible for any court in Zimbabwe to effectively hear a case about itself and the Law Society. Additionally, the fact that the Law Society stated in writing that it would be considered unprofessional for any legal practitioner to represent the writer, further restricts a local case being heard. No individual in similar position could put faith in any Court or local system of Justice where the Chief Justice had already offered effective incentive to walk away from the case.   Some of the issues the writer has are applicable to many small and Third World countries and, once publicised, will promote change to World benefit. If, the International Community considered the Administration of Justice in Zimbabwe one of the best in the Third World then it follows that there are important lessons to learn.  

Assistance sought  

Support to take my claim and case to the International Court.   Whilst the writer does not claim to be a legal practitioner, provided any case is heard in Zimbabwe Law the writer is quite prepared to represent himself. It was necessary for the writer to acquaint himself with the basics of law overnight in order to represent himself against the largest local law firm.   The writer holds the former Chief Justice, former Head of Bar, The Law Society of Zimbabwe and its members and, those lawyers in South Africa responsible for his claims amounting to, the equivalent of, US$two million  plus interest and costs and expects/ requests that UN Human Rights Commission assist the writer by promoting this case to the International Court.    


To my daughters who at age 10 and 11, isolated as we were, illustrated great courage, caring for me unaided when in a coma and fevered, being my eyes when I had my sight taken from me and carrying me when I was unable to walk resultant of a failed assasination. No children should have to go through what they endured.  

Mr Ryan: - Murdered  

Justly afforded a State funeral by the then President Kenneth Kaunda. An esteemed lawyer in Zambia who represented me and who continued with a case, without my knowledge, against a Canadian based company operating out of London engaged in international crime in Zambia. Sadly, for reasons of lack of personal security, I was unable to give evidence and was forced to reject Interpol’s request.  

Colonel John Reed: - Murdered.  

Once the youngest Magistrate ever in the former Rhodesia he became an Advocate General in the armed forces and laterally Head of Legal Affairs with the Ministry of Justice. A valued friend who believed in legal ethics, murdered in the ‘death wing’ of a local CatholicHospital personally monitored by an Advocate. Sadly, it appeared later, that it was erroneously suspected that he was giving me legal advice/ opinion. Hence, I presume, the title given to him by the Chief Justice and others, “a casualty of the law”.  

Mr Nyati : - Died recently in mysterious circumstances.  

Legal practitioner and Personal Assistant to the Minister of Justice and laterally, to the Speaker of Parliament. A deeply religious man, engaged continuously in trying to improve the quality of law often, at personal expense. A promoter and member of committees on anti corruption promoting stiff anti corruption legislation. A man with whom I made a pact to continue with our quest for Justice for all should he be eliminated and, who made a similar pact with me.  

The webmaster would be grateful for any comments, feedback or relevant research material for this web site.
Simply click this link   

Website Builder