JOHANNESBURG – Zimbabwean businessman Mutumwa Mawere who is in self-imposed exile, has initiated legal proceedings in South Africa to prevent President Cyril Ramaphosa from contesting in the upcoming general elections until addressing the contentious issue of Zimbabwe’s Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act.
Under the Act, Mawere lost control of his Shabanie Mashava mines (SMM) Holdings, once the largest asbestos-producing conglomerate in Zimbabwe. The legislation was enacted following a commercial dispute that spilled into South African courts after SMM failed to settle its debts with Petter Trading (Pvt) Limited, a company based in South Africa, due to intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.
The Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act was championed by then Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs minister Patrick Chinamasa. However, Mawere’s legal team argues that the Act was implemented unilaterally, without judicial oversight, raising concerns about constitutional supremacy, executive authority, and judicial integrity.
Mawere’s application to the South African courts seeks to preserve the integrity of legal proceedings related to judgments involving the reconstruction decree in Zimbabwe. The urgency of the application is emphasized by the legal principle of ab initio, which asserts that if Ramaphosa’s conduct is deemed invalid from its inception, his participation in the 2024 general elections would be unlawful.
In his affidavit, Mawere highlights the potential compromise to the integrity of the electoral process and the rule of law if these issues remain unaddressed. He requests an interdict restraining Ramaphosa from participating in the 2024 general elections until the case is resolved, along with any additional relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Mawere underscores the significance of addressing the implications of President Mnangagwa’s reconstruction legislative framework, citing concerns related to public policy, international law, ethics, jurisdiction, corruption, and constitutional rights.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case brings to the forefront broader questions about the intersection of law, governance, and cross-border commercial disputes in the Southern African region.
