Connect with us

Support The NewsHawks

I have strong case against Mnangagwa Musengezi


Police summon Mnangagwa challenger



IN a strange move viewed as intimidatory, police have invited Zanu PF youth league member Sybeth Musengezi (pictured) for “interviews” at the Harare Law and Order section.


Musengezi is challenging the legitimacy of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s rise to the ruling party’s helm.

 Police have been hunting for Musengezi for unknown reasons, forcing his lawyers, Ncube Attorneys, to write to them on 7 January 2022 asking the law enforcers to come out in the open on why they are desperately hunting him.

Musengezi in October 2021 challenged Mnangagwa’s rise to the Zanu PF leadership, saying the central committee meeting that propelled him to power after his sacking by the late former president Robert Mugabe was unprecedural and unconstitutional.

In a letter addressed to Musengezi’s lawyers dated 6 April 2022, the police invited Mnangagwa’s challenger for “interviews”, but did not state their agenda. “Reference is made to your letter dated Janu[1]ary 7, 2022 in connection with the above subject. We are kindly inviting you and your client Sybeth Musengezi to come to law and order Harare for interviews,” the letter signed by the officer-in-charge of the Criminal Investigations Department’s Law and Order section in Harare, Detective Inspector Arimon Mirimbo, reads.

The lawyers representing the Zanu PF member, who is also a local businessman and economist, wrote to the police inquiring why they were stalking him.

 Police even visited the home of his in-laws in Harare’s Budiriro suburb on 5 January this year, telling the family that they wanted Musengezi over undisclosed allegations.

In his application that has ruffled feathers in Zanu PF which is battling internal fissures over power struggles between Mnangagwa and his deputy Constantino Chiwenga, Musengezi said the party constitution was not followed in Mnangagwa’s rise. Zanu PF insiders confirmed that Mnangagwa and Chiwenga were locked in a bitter fight ahead of the party’s elective congress due in December this year.

“Our client is obviously worried about such a visit, taking into consideration that there is a pending matter where he has approached the High Court of Zimbabwe over the legitimacy of the incumbent President who doubles as the President of Zanu PF and its 1st secretary,” the lawyers’ letter reads.

“It is in light of this background that we are being retained to enquire into the nature of the visit, in particular whether there are any criminal charges, so that we arrange that our Mr (Nqobani) Sithole who is in Bulawayo accompanies our client on a pre-agreed date as to ensure that his legal rights are duly observed in whatever process is intended. From the above, we request that you favour us with information regarding your visit, and that you advise if we need to avail our client, and if so, when and where?”

After Musengezi filed his application last year, Mnangagwa’s lawyer, Edwin Manikai from the law firm Dube, Manikai and Hwacha (DMH), said the President could not be sued because he has immunity. Mnangagwa’s lawyers sought to force Musengezi into withdrawing the matter. Mnangagwa’s lawyers filed the respondents’ opposing affidavit before turning around and demanding the withdrawal of the case lest the applicant and his lawyers suffer the consequences, in a clear case of litigation by correspondence.

 But in his answering affidavit in the High Court, Musengezi came out guns blazing against Zanu PF (first respondent), Mnangagwa (second), Obert Mpofu (third) and Patrick Chinamasa (fourth).

The fifth respondent is former vice-president Phelekezela Mphoko and the sixth is ex-Zanu PF secretary for administration Ignatius Chombo.

 After the threatening letter from Mnangagwa’s lawyers, Ncube Attorneys wrote a letter dated 18 November 2021 acknowledging receipt of Manikai’s earlier correspondence of 11 November 2021, and simultaneously complained about DMH’s conduct.

Musengezi’s lawyers reported Manikai to the Law Society of Zimbabwe for “unprofessional” and “unethical” conduct.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *