Mr. Tawanda Nyambirai v Miriam Mutizwa – Part 2

The dispute in relation to the origins of the First Mutual Life (FML) dispute will continue to occupy many minds in Zimbabwe not because of the merits of the dispute but because some have sought to characterize it as part of broader agenda to defame and undermine the integrity and reputation of Mr Strive Masiyiwa.

Ms. Miriam’s bona fides has been challenged by Mr. Tich Mutyambizi and now by Mr. Tawanda Nyambirai whose interest in facts that clearly fall outside his personal knowledge is problematic and startling.

The dispute has taken a new twist because both Strive and Tsitsi, his dear wife, have provoked the public to begin to interrogate the Econet story from its idea and execution including its pre and post-IPO funding.

Against the above backdrop, this is what Ms. Mutizwa has to say about Mr. Nyambirai’s allegations in Part 2 of her response.

“It is instructive that you state that: “I have not found it necessary to go into records regarding an investigation instigated by Mr Mawere against FML in respect of its participation in the Econet Initial Public Offering;” yet Mr. Jackson Muzivi, a former employee and policyholder of FML, has been sharing with us his interest in this matter and how he believes that the interests of justice have not been served for the last 20 years that this dispute has been in the public domain.

I cannot answer for Mr. Mawere but your suggestion that the investigation into the affairs of FML was instigated by him is preposterous and disingenuous to say the least.

Mr. Mawere has stated on various social media platforms that he was neither a policyholder nor a director of FML.

If it his position that he was not director of FML is correct and factual, then where does the allegation that a problem that started at the AGM of FML could have been instigated by an external person flow from me?

It is clear that you have and continue to use Mr. Mawere as the driving mind of Strive’s purported persecution and his alleged involvement in the facts of the investigation.

You state that: “The investigation was never an investigation on Econet,” but you fail to acknowledge that the allegations that FML”s policyholder funds were unlawfully invested in Econet forms part of a broader public interest that speaks to transparency, fairness, justice and equity.

I am sure you will agree with me that a complaint was lodged with the Commissioner of Insurance in Zimbabwe alleging that the FML investment into Econet was seriously and materially tainted by possible fraud and corruption.

I am encouraged that you do at least acknowledge that an investigation team was appointed and did approach you as a person of interest in the Econet matter.

What I take issue with you is that you seem to be congratulating yourself in having refused or failed to disclose the true nature of the transaction that resulted in TSM getting 60% shares in Econet on the back of fraudulent misrepresentations that TSM was a lawful holder of equipment that it never lawfully acquired from it’s TRUE owners.

If I am mistaken, you are an attorney and the material time you were practicing as such, and this would have made you an Officer of Court.

It is disturbing that an Officer of Court would conclude that it was not in the interests of justice to disclose why TSM was issued with shares by Econet without any attempt by Econet to establish independently how a resident of Zimbabwe could have acquired foreign equipment without any known source of funding and more importantly without exchange control approval.

When you say: “I had to make a decision on their demand because such matters fell under my portfolio,” I am not sure why information that was disclosed in a Prospectus could suddenly be construed by a lawyer to be privileged and confidential?

It is interesting that in terms of your own version you: “refused to give them access to client confidential information and advised them to first get a Court Order in accordance with the law,” without explaining how the information regarding the concealment to FML and other investors to the effect that at all material times, TSM never owned any equipment to allow it to receive value from Econet in form of shares.

I am, therefore, correct in concluding that this material information as to what led NMB as a registered financial services provider to decide to underwrite the Econet IPO was never given by you voluntarily as would have been expected from any law abiding citizen and a Man of God like you claim to be?

I am not entirely sure as to what prejudice you and your client could possibly have suffered by disclosing the true facts of the IPO transaction that were already in the public domain.

It is unusual for any person to seek to protect a morally upright person like Mr. Masiyiwa claims to be.

What were you protecting then and still protecting now?

Were you really working for NMB or working for Mr. Masiyiwa using the bank as a conduit for what FML claim was a fraud of a monumental proportion?

To me this represents a material point of departure in the quest for justice and fairness.

Until your response on your Facebook Wall, I had no idea that the decision to withhold material information to a lawfully constituted and appointed investigation team was made by you.

I am not sure in what capacity you sought to prevent the investigation team into Econet affairs when you were clearly an employee of NMB.

I am shocked that you actually managed to get away with this attempt to defeat the course of justice.

In the chats with Mr. Mutyambizi on Twitter I was not aware that a person of your stature could stoop this low as to allow yourself to be a barbarian at the gate of justice and try to celebrate its naked obstruction.

Related posts

Leave a Comment