Mawere: the untold story

Mawere: the untold story

• Judge: 'Mawere's corporate veil pierced'

• Mawere blows whistle on whistle blower

• Whistle blower demands $30 billion

• Mawere, NMB bosses assets frozen

• Mawere freed by South Africa court

• Mawere is South Africa citizen

• Mawere gets R50 000 bail

• Mawere arrested by Interpol in SA

• Makamba repatriates externalised forex

• Court thwarts Makamba's freedom bid

• Makamba released, rearrested

• Makamba faces 22 forex offences

• Makamba arrested

In a story on fugitive Zimbabwean Telecel boss James Makamba on Thursday, we referred to business mogul Mutumwa Mawere as a "fugitive". Writing for New Zimbabwe.com today, Mawere says the reference is not only wrong but criminalises his name. In part one of an exclusive series, he explains why:

THE word fugitive has been used in reference to me. I am a Zimbabwean-born South African citizen. The Encarta Dictionary defines a fugitive as somebody who is running away, for example from justice, enemies, or brutal treatment.

The question we need to ask is whether I am a fugitive as defined or there is another agenda to label me as such while my assets are being stripped and taken over by the State. Could it be that the attempted abortive extradition was an integral part of a well-orchestrated strategy to ensure that while the public perceived me to have run away, the State could then proceed to have unfettered access to my companies and the foreign currency generated from exports?

My domicile has not been a secret and it was curious that the State did not take advantage of my many visits to Zimbabwe to arrest me. Rather, an attempt was made in the knowledge of the State that I was a resident of South Africa and, therefore, extradition was unlikely to succeed. The events that followed the abortive extradition are even more instructive into the context and content of the assault on my companies.

Only nine days after the extradition application was dismissed by a South African magistrate, I was specified under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This was then followed by the specification of SMM Holdings (Private) Limited (SMM) my flagship company. An investigator, Mr. Saruchera, was appointed in August 2004 to investigate the affairs of SMM but to date no report has been forthcoming from him. A few weeks later, a statutory instrument was issued by the Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs, Hon. P. Chinamasa, placing SMM under the control of a State appointed administrator. All these events are not unconnected but reflect an intricate web of conspiracy. The State media has consistently referred to me as a fugitive without explaining how I can be considered as such when my common residence has always been South Africa. It also turned out that I had legally acquired South African citizenship in 2002 prior to his debacle with the State. If I voluntarily acquired South African citizenship, then I automatically lost my Zimbabwean citizenship according to the Citizenship Act of Zimbabwe.

Could my labeling as a fugitive be part of a grand strategy to misinform the public into thinking that the State had no choice but to intervene since I had deserted? It is also ironical that my listed company, Turnall Holdings Limited (THL), posted excellent half year results and yet we are told that I was such a busy man who controlled his empire with an iron fist leading to the State holding me culpable for the actions of my companies.

I was specified on July 9, 2004 and more than a year later no report has been forthcoming from my State appointed investigator, Assistant Commissioner S. Mangoma. However, in the interim, I have lost my empire and the beneficiary is the State through its nominated agent, AMG Global Nominees (Private) Limited. The constitutionality of disabling someone and then proceed to dispossess him has to be tested. No precedent exists where the State assumes obligations of other parties for the sole purpose of expropriating assets while using the media to label the victim as a fugitive.

It is instructive that no pressure is being exerted on the State to produce a report on the investigations into my business dealings. How can the State take over control of a company and not complete its investigations for more than a year?

In addition, the State has now conveniently placed itself in the shoes of State institutions to allow for the takeover of my companies without changing the enabling legislation for the relevant institutions. For example, in my case, SMM’s obligations to ZESA were classified as State obligations without amending the ZESA Act to allow for the disappearance of the institution as a separate juristic person as would have been required by existing laws. ZESA operates as a commercial company and the State is only a shareholder. It has its own persona and can sue and be sued in its own right like any other company. How then can the State say that electricity supplied to my companies constitutes State indebtedness? The premise for the take over of companies is that my companies were indebted to the State. How can a private company ever be indebted to the State when the State is not a business?

COMING MONDAY: Mnangagwa and I, by Mutumwa Mawere

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com