At Independence the Judiciary remained intact or in any event continued to be controlled by whites for fairly obvious reasons. It was about the land issue and it gave the white minority a sense of security. It was also, coupled with the Lancaster House Agreement, a way around the payment of compensation by Britain.

Whilst the issue of minority protection may seem moral in this case you had a situation where the Mugabe Government made laws and tried to govern and the Smith regime controlled Justice and the economy. Even worse, you had the same Constitutional Judges, Judges and Magistrates who had supported the view that blacks shouldn't be allowed a vote "for another 100 years". How can anyone respect a Constitutional Judge who is against democracy and majority rule one day having sworn an oath of allegiance to the Smith Government and then swears allegiance to the Mugabe Government based on majority rule - it is unconscionable!

As with all former British Colonies, legal access to the House of Lords ceased without replacement and whilst to many this may seem a triviality it is the main reason for political instability throughout third world former British Colonies.

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 UK or South Africa.

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

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 the general public 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 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. The accused shot and killed a young girl in his car and set the car alight in an attempt to stage his death, 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 bodies as Amnesty International insisting on the "Independence of the Judiciary".

Due to the inaccessibility of the courts to the general public, 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 terrorism. Courts become about money and corruption instead of justice.

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.

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

1. Editing of High Court transcripts by Judges.
2. 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)
3. Cover - up of the murder of the former Head of Legal Affairs (a personal friend and former Advocate General) by the Chief Justice, a High Court Judge, Large Law Firm and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. The murder was monitored by an Advocate now resident in South Africa. (A local Catholic Hospital had involvement with its death wing.- I was told personally by the Chief Justice 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").
4. 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 case against him in his personal capacity for unprofessional conduct. Later, by the then Chief Justice privately in Supreme Court Chambers, of unlimited preferential finance for my projects from any Zimbabwe Commercial Bank in exchange for me 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 the truth.

5. "Sensitive" cases were not those concerning minors or national security as one may expect, they were about legal practitioners impropriety where the public and media were barred, local newspapers threatened. It is not just the Zimbabwe Government who control part of the 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 witnesses 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.
6. 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.

I made complaint and asked the assistance of the then lady Administrator of Law in researching the situation via the School of Jurisprudence at Oxford. I also made complaint to the Chairman of the International Bar Association in the UK and another member of the IBA delegation after they visited Zimbabwe.

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 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. So very simple and considerably cheaper and more humanitarian than sending in foreign armies to keep the peace with a bullet. Imagine, all this, for just a fraction of a percent of the cost of the eventual military occupation by the UN and other peacekeeping forces.

Sadly, it is a scenario as yet unresearched by the Law Universities of note in the First World because, they 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 or organised crime and eventual collapse of third world countries and their economies. Senior Lawyers here 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, was 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 Ndebeles to oppose President Mugabe thus destabilising the Zimbabwe Government. Because it was an internal situation, the Mugabe Government would send its loyal fifth brigade thus ensuring a political clash, adverse publicity thereby forcing President Mugabe to change policy.

I told him that I had previously ignored the Zimbabwe Government's televised complaints of economic sabotage by South Africa as ludicrous political propaganda by same, I simply didnt 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 Judiciary and legal fraternity in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

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

It is a fact that the British MI. 6 were attached to Zimbabwe Central Intelligence, one requested information from my fellow directors and I at the time. So, for the International media to condemn the now Speaker and former Minister of Justice, Emmerson Munangagwa, for his involvement with CIO, is to condemn its former Director and the British MI 6.

Imagine, British MI 6 wanted to take advantage of my popularity within business circles to spy on fellow whites for the Zimbabwe Government. Because Britain didnt pay compensation at Independence and there was severe foreign currency restrictions locally, whites who wanted to leave sold what they could in a buyers market and bought forex on the black market in desperation. The MI 6, British Government, now wanted me to inform on these people so that they could be imprisoned locally. (Normally the local funds of those leaving were placed in blocked accounts locally)

Prior to the establishment of the Constitutional Commission in Zimbabwe, the writer volunteered his assistance to the then Minister of Justice, Emmerson 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 the driving force was the knowledge that there were those locally that would take advantage of the Constitutional Commission, that it would become a power struggle leading to violence.

He attached me to his Assistant Mr Nyati where the writer worked on such projects as the proposed Anti-Corruption Bill.

There is a need 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 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 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 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 was a steady stream 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 husbands death, only ever receiving the first payment.

After some three years she obtained an eviction order from the Bulawayo High Court. She claimed on appeal, 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.

Her Lawyer had not followed the correct procedure when making application for the Eviction Order, he had not given him 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 coming up to five years after the event she was receiving between 10 and 20 % 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.

The 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.

I gave evidence privately in the Chairmans office of the Constitutional Commission my evidence being considered sensitive.. The overall theme, the import of my evidence was that the Commission and Constitution was unimportant, a waste of time and money. That laws suggested there and passed by Parliament would be ignored and interpreted any way 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 then Deputy Lady Chairman, lawyers, those present will bear witness that I tried.

There were others with similar complaints, suffice to say, I failed in my attempts to stop the process of he Draft Constitution, to prevent the obvious violence, political and civic unrest to come.

It is a matter of record that in terms of the now defunct proposed Draft Constitution the 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. (The appropriate section of the draft constitution is copied on this site as, for reasons best know to themselves, certain local newspapers/ legal practitioners at the time averred 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.

6. The resources available to the acquiring authority in implementing the programme of land reform;
7. any financial constraints that necessitate the payment of compensation in installments over a period of time; and

Why discuss resources and payment installments if you dont intend to ensure the landowner gets paid?

To President Mugabes 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 to comment by the Minister of Justices' Assistant)

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?

Can it be believed that the Chief Justice was unaware of the contents of the Draft Constitution?

Justice Gubbay, the Chief Justice, wrote an article in the "Legal Forum", September 1999, just prior to the Constitutional Commission, stating basically 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 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 Proffessor 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.

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 an 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 of the wisdom of Supreme Court Judges placing articles in any publication that prejudges individuals without trial.

Whilst 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 - 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 in 20 years illustrating concern. 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 (farmers wives?) 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, the farmers had lose and unfortunately Mugabe is in for another term in terms of the draft but, we achieved our objective."

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 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? Who advised the Commercial Farmers Union executive? Why were legal cases dragged out?

Why did the Legal Profession and Law Society not advise the general public in the Press (In terms of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 it is their mandate to "Promote the Law".) that the subsequent referendum was academic? Why did they keep quiet?

That any Constitution had to be redrafted by Ministry of Justice into the correct format, put before Parliament and a legal committee, corrections made, gazetted, debated and then voted in or out like all law.

That the general public doesnt 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.

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 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 high jacked by the law itself who maintained British Government support.

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?

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 made it effectively impossible for an individual to appeal against 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.

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 court in one court alone!). 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 has 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?

I heard within legal circles that there was a situation where a tourist was arrested at the airport on arrival because he didnt speak English and couldn't communicate - he was found 8 years later, accidentally, by a judge visiting a prison. How many more similar cases are there?

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.

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", in 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, funded by Britain.

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

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.)

I replied disbelievingly " Who would kill me?"

He said "The Judges"

I said "You cant 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 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.

For reasons best known to the lady administrator, her prime interest was in the correspondence from the Law Society.

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 was 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 at which stage the Chief Justice went silent and said "well you can still get a lawyer from South Africa."

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 I recall as a 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 stated: -

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 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 cant 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 well.

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, 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 dont 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 the evening before and sat next to the Head of Bar. Had he read this first he would not have attended, he had wasted his money coming here.

f) A Rabbi of Law in South Africa

The Rabbi travelled to Zimbabwe to research the writer resultant of one of his designs. The Rabbi maintained that this design circumvented one of the Jewish laws of their Sabbath something that others 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 a 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 in favour of promoting Justice for all in Zimbabwe, he stated the following words of wisdom in a telephone conversation of concern: -

The webmaster cannot claim to understand how it feels to be colonised or deprived of a vote. However, he 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 a Complainant in a High Court matter before a Judge.

Having weathered death threats, the murder of a friend of legal note, resisted an incentive worth the equivalent of over a million pounds, in a High Court matter supported by, the Minister of Justice, the Ombudsman of Zimbabwe and my accountant, the Chairman of his respective Institute in writing to the Judge.

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", Defendant in his own right, prior to the hearing. It was the first time the webmaster had ever faced a Judge and it was a kind of "legal rape".

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 webmaster was aware that the Head of Bar had "seized" immense power.

Whilst the webmaster, 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".

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

Under construction, coming soon.

Send this site address to your MP, MEP, your University, your Newspaper or a friend.

Copy and paste the following link into your email.