Chamisa VS Tshabangu In Court : Jonso’s take

Prof. Jonathan Moyo


By Prof. Jonathan Moyo

For quite some time, many have wondered why Nelson Chamisa had done everything he could to avoid tendering an affidavit in the CCC recall cases that have been the political and legal story, following the 2023 harmornised general election.

When Chamisa resigned from the presidency of CCC on 25 January 2024, it seemed like had succeeded in avoiding having to tender an affidavit in court to have his say about the CCC debacle.

But when  CCC and Tshabangu sued Chamisa as the only respondent in the spoliation case after rowdy demonstrators in blue, claiming to be Chamisa, painted CCC’s Bulawayo offices blue; Chamisa had no choice this time but to come to court.

Below are brief extracts of the key submissions that Tshabangu made about himself and Chamisa under oath in his affidavit; and for the first time in an affidavit and also under oath, Chamisa’s key responses to Tshabangu:

Tshabangu’s key affidavit submissions about himself, Chamisa and CCC:

“I, SENGEZO TSHABANGU, do hereby make and oath and state as follows:

1.I am the Interim Secretary General of the Applicant and I am duly authorised to depose to this affidavit in that capacity, and having so

authorised to do so as morefully appears from the Resolution of the Applicant attached hereto marked “ST1”.

2.The facts deposed herein are within my knowledge, true and correct, unless the context indicates otherwise. Where I make averments of a legal nature, I do so on the advice of the

  1. Applicant’s legal practitioners, advice I believe is a true and correct exposition of the law. The Applicant’s address of service is care of my legal practitioners of record, Ncube Attorneys, 12A Park Road, Suburbs, Bulawayo. 2. The Applicant is CITIZENS COALITION FOR CHANGE, a common law universitas and a political party recognised and operating in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe with capacity to sue and of being sued.”
    Chamisa’s key affidavit responses to Tshabangu’s affidavit:

“I, the undersigned


do hereby take oath and swear to state that;

  1. I am the Respondent in this matter. The facts I depose to herein are to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief true and correct. Where I do not have personal knowledge of certain facts, I have made efforts to verify the same. Where I make averments as to legal propositions I do so on the advice of my lawyers believing the same to be sound at law.
    . I have read and understood the founding affidavit of Sengezo Tshabangu. I wish to state at the outset that I am an unwilling participant in this litigation. I have now been forced to put forward my defence because relief, including an order of costs, is sought personally against me. I absolutely have nothing to with this matter and none of my conduct is in issue.
  2. To the founding affidavit I respond, where necessary, as follows:
    Ad Para 1 – 4
  3. No issues save to state that the Respondent’s address for service is as appears on the face of the Notice of Opposition.”

Four very significant and therefore important factual and legal reasons, the following conclusions stand out and are notable from Chamisa’s game changing affidavit:

  1. Tshabangu says under oath in his affidavit that he is the Interim Secretary General of CCC and that he has authority to act for CCC. 2. In response, and under oath in his first affidavit that deals with Tshabangu’s position and authority in CCC, Chamisa does not deny that Tshabangu is Triple C’s Interim Secretary General and he does not deny that Tshabangu has the authority to act for CCC. In legal effect, Chamisa admits that Tshabangu is CCC’s Interim Secretary General with authority to act for CCC. Notably, this is what Tshabangu has said and maintained in his court papers ever since the litigation in the recall cases started. 3. While not disputing Tshabangu’s status as Triple C’s Interim Secretary General and his authority to act for CCC, Chamisa does not deny the identity and existence of CCC. 4. In his affidavit, Tshabangu says that Chamisa was the President of the applicant [CCC] and says in his affidavit that he is authorised to act for CCC, Chamisa does not deny that he was at the material time the President of the applicant [CCC]. He actually accepts this fact, but says he resigned. In other words, Chamisa accepts that he was the President of the same CCC for which Tshabangu is Interim Secretary General with the authority to act for it. 5. However, while not denying the identity and existence of CCC, Chamisa also says, in his affidavit responding to Tshabangu, in his words, “I wish to reiterate that I have no special association with any colour, any political organisation or any movement”. This puts paid to some who are abusing CCC’s account on X and others who are playing pretentious games in Parliament, calling themselves blue and claiming to be acting for or with Chamisa in the legislature; and those who are running around with blue, claiming to be paving the way for a nee Chamisa ‘blue movement’. 6. Also, in his response under oath in his affidavit, Chamisa does not dispute the submission by Tshabangu that he was authorised to act for CCC by an Interim CCC National Council. In fact, by not disputing Tshabangu’s submission on this, Chamisa at law effectively accepts both the existence of an Interim CCC National Council and its power to confer, as it did, authority on Tshabangu.
    7.  Last but not least, Chamisa says under oath in his game changing affidavit, that he has no offices in Bulawayo and that he was not responsible for the spoliation that was done in his name. In other words, he had and has nothing to do whatsoever with whoever painted the CCC Bulawayo offices blue in his name.

Chamisa’s affidavit submitted to the Bulawayo High Court is a game changer in the pending litigation where Tshabangu’s position and authority in CCC has been questioned, challenged or disputed. Chamisa has effectively closed those arguments.

If Chamisa or whoever is the Advocate advising him thought Chamisa’s effective admissions in his affidavit in the spoliation case are mundane ‘truths’ following his resignation last month, then they better think again.

All hell is about to break loose!  Prof Jonathan Moyo was writing on X

Putin warns West against sending troops to Ukraine

MOSCOW. – Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday warned Western countries against sending troops to Ukraine.

The consequences of such a decision would be “tragic”, he said.

In his annual state of the nation address, President Putin accused the West of trying to drag Russia into an arms race.

At the same time, he said that Russia needed to strengthen its defences on its western border now that Sweden and Finland were joining Nato.

President Putin said the West “provoked” the conflict in Ukraine and “continues to lie, without any embarrassment, saying that Russia allegedly intends to attack Europe”.

Probably referring to comments by French President Emmanuel Macron earlier this week that sending Nato ground troops to Ukraine “could not be excluded”, President Putin said: “The consequences for possible interventionists will be… tragic.”

“We also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory,” he added.

“All this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilisation. Don’t they get that?”

About Post Author


Leave a Reply

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