The Sunday News
Vincent Gono, Features Editor
CENTRAL Intelligence Organisation (CIO) deputy director-general Dr Gatsha Mazithulela has aimed a tirade at Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (Osisa) director Mr Siphosami Malunga accusing him of sinking too low into the depths of desperation, lacking sincerity and probity as the legal battle for ownership of Esidakeni Farm rages on.
In his responding affidavit to the court application over the ownership wrangle of the farm in Nyamandlovu, Umguza District in Matabeleland North Province, Dr Mazithulela said the application by Mr Malunga was fraudulent and bare of facts.
He took a dig at Mr Malunga for making frivolous, fictitious and vexatious claims which he said were aimed at defaming him in his personal and professional capacity as well as discrediting the Government’s re-engagement drive through regularising the land reform. The dispute over the farm has since attracted a running fire of verbal diatribes with legal accusations and counter-accusations.
The farm was acquired by the Government in 2004 from Mr Jeffrey Swindels who used to own it under Kershelmer Farms (Private) Limited which Mr Malunga and his partners, Mr Zephania Dhlamini and Mr Charles Moyo claim share ownership of. The three through their lawyers, Webb, Low and Barry Legal Practitioners filed an urgent chamber application at the Bulawayo High Court claiming that Dr Mazithulela, Messrs. Reason Mpofu and Mr Dumisani Madzivanyati have illegally acquired their farm.
They cited in their application, Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Resettlement Minister Dr Anxious Masuka, Dr Mazithulela, Mr Madzivanyati, Messrs Mpofu and three others as respondents. Dr Masuka opposed the application by the trio arguing that it lacked depth and appreciation of land laws.
Dr Mazithulela said it was misleading for the three applicants to try and hoodwink the court into believing that they were directors of Kershelmer as their assumption of directorship was not recognised at law and therefore illegal.
“In any event it has been stated that the first, second and third respondents are not directors of fourth respondent (Kershelmer). Their purported appointments under an illegal agreement are void and of no consequence.”
He said the application by the three borders on nothing more than mischief as they were approaching the court with dirty hands. Dr Mazithulela added that by making reference to his employ as deputy director-general of CIO the insinuation was that the organisation had an interest in the matter when in fact it had none.
“They have done great damage to the Government’s drive efforts and image as an investment destination particularly in the agricultural sector given the legacy issues the country is dealing with in order to give the necessary comfort and certainty to prospective investors. For the record, I do not have an offer letter to the said farm/s, I have not applied for one, neither do I wish to apply for one,” he said.
He added that there was absolutely no truth in the wild and reckless allegations that he caused or influenced the acquisition of the farm and that he parcelled it out to his subordinates. Dr Mazithulela said it was abusive of the veneration of the court for Mr Malunga who is also lawyer by profession to dare place before the court outright falsehoods and other misleading documents with the purpose of making sensational “breaking news” in the media of emotional outbursts typical of unrestrained psyche emotionally incapable of accepting responsibility for its actions.
Mr Madzivanyati who is the 5th respondent in the matter and has an offer letter for part of the land in question weighed in saying it was folly and absurd for Mr Malunga to think that he ought to be accorded an advantage to the exclusion of other black Zimbabweans on grounds that his father (Sydney Malunga) participated in the liberation struggle.
Dr Gatsha Mazithulela
He added that the application by the three was based on malice and the court should not be confused into believing that their alleged purchase of shares in Kershelmer meant that they have purchased the land. He said the issuance of an offer letter followed his application for land like every person seeking land in Zimbabwe, adding that the applicants should refrain from using the court to clothe the evident illegal sale of land with legality.
“There is nothing unlawful about the offer letter that I hold. I find it ludicrous that the applicants believe that I am friends with an entire ministry from where my offer letter emanates. I am not (Dr) Gatsha’s subordinate neither am I his front. I properly received an offer letter.
I find the reasoning of the applicants flawed in that in one breath they argue that they are not Mr Swindels’ front because they have a share purchase agreement with him, yet in another, they believe I am Gatsha’s front notwithstanding that I have a regular offer letter.”
Minister Masuka said the applicants were not at law recognised as the owners of the land as the title deed was in the name of a white farmer.
“The land in question is State land and does not belong to the applicants. In addition to this the applicants miss one critical point on dealing with acquisition issues. The acquisition process is governed and provided for by Section 72 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which makes it clear that once a piece of land is gazetted, it immediately becomes State land and this process cannot be challenged through the courts.
