Mr. Tawanda Nyambirai v Miriam Mutizwa – Part 1

Jan - 07
2019

Mr. Tawanda Nyambirai v Miriam Mutizwa – Part 1

What started as a conversation on tweeter involving Mr. Tichatonga Mwanawevhu aka Mutyambizi in relation to the facts and circumstances of Econet’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) has now come full circle roping Mr. Tawanda Nyambirai in this bare knuckle fight on where the truth lies.

Mr. Nyambirai has responded on his Facebook page stating as follows:

We have asked Ms. Mutizwa to respond to the allegations made by Mr. Nyambirai and her Part 1 response is as follows:

“I am encouraged that you have responded to my comments regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the Econet IPO.

It is only when we engage in honest, transparent and not abusive conversations that the truth will be revealed in the context in which it unfolded irrespective of the passage of time that will never alter the facts of the matter.

I take issue with your attempt to characterize the author as unnamed yet the words in the article have a source in me. I am sure you will have noted that I am not a robot but a real human being who has been actively participating in a number of human rights issues especially in respect of Zimbabwe.

I am the Miriam Mutizwa in the article and my words were correctly captured. In addition, I am a human rights activist. In this dispute, I have no doubt that you will agree that at its core is an allegation that TSM was credited with having invested a substantial amount of money in the mobile cellular network prior to the issuance of a licence to Econet.

I am pleased that you have chosen to respond as it became obvious that Mr. Mutyambizi’s facts were at best non-existence and at worst diversionary and speculative.

Indeed, the article was published by www.bankingonafrica.com as part of a contribution to the promotion. protection and upholding of the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

It is trite that both TSM and Econet were juristic persons with separate and distinct existence from Mr. Strive Masiyiwa. If this is accepted, then you as a lawyer would know the implications of collapsing Mr. Masiyiwa into the affairs of these two juristic entities.

I am surprised that in your response, you seek to conflate what ordinarily would be a simple matter. If TSM was the lawful title holder of the equipment that was capitalized into the balance sheet of Econet, then surely documentary evidence exists and must exist confirming this alleged reality.

I say boldly that it is an alleged reality that a company of straw would rise above its financial limitations to claim ownership of real assets and value representing at a purportedly discounted value about 60% of the value of post-IPO Econet.

I am not an accountant but common sense dictates that for every $ of assets in use, there must be a $ of liability or equity associated with it.

In this matter, you seem aggrieved by a simple request made to Mr. Mutyambizi by a number of people on tweeter for him to trace the genealogy of the alleged relationship between the equipment and TSM.

You stated in your write up that: “I don’t like these challenges. They tend to degenerate into an unnecessary showdown as each party tries to defend their position. They are not normally genuine pursuits of the truth. They are traps intended to feed an undisclosed agenda,” and I agree with you that in the unregulated social media space it is not easy to control thought and its expression.

I totally share your concern that challenges tend to degenerate into an unnecessary showdown as each party tries to defend their position.

I have learned that what I think is right need not be right to another person. I am intrigued by your statement that some of the outcries and actions: “are not normally genuine pursuits of the truth,” which rhymes with what Mrs. Masiyiwa said: “Some outcries and actions in pursuit of justice seem and look so right until you discover the source of the outcry and sponsor of the cause. Take a step back and reflect on some of the things we consider good and just causes.”

It is only when we critically examine the underlying message that you and Tsitsi are trying to convey that a person like me has to make this a subject on its own.

I think you will agree with me that what is genuine to you need not be genuine to another person.  I am surprised that the pursuit of the truth can be prejudged by an officer of the Court like you.

I am sure you will agree with me that the pursuit of the truth can be absolute and not necessarily a means to an end.  I had thought that the truth about the facts of Econet’s IPO can help inspire, ignite and provoke young people to be leaders of tomorrow.

Tsitsi has asked us to step back and reflect on some of the things that she thinks on our behalf to be good and just caused in order to arrive at her conclusion that some outcries and actions are not bona fide.

It is, therefore, interesting that you have concluded that: “In the present case, the agenda is disclosed,” simply because I as the writer of the message in the article and the BOAF reporter are on a campaign to defame Mr. Strive Masiyiwa.

This has disturbed me greatly because the idea that I can give up my valuable time simply to defame Mr. Masiyiwa sucks.  Why would you think that your time is more important than mine and that my time can be easily squandered in the name of trying to defame the mighty Strive Masiyiwa?

Your decision to align your cause with that of Strive and his wife, Tsitsi, is entirely driven by your own choices. However, I do not think that it is beneficial to seek to undermine the integrity of other people like me who are keen to understand the history and background of Econet.

My training and professional background is in the ICT space and I am one of many who looked up to Strive Masiyiwa as a beacon of hope. I have followed Strive Masiyiwa on social media and his version of the genesis and financing of Econet fails to address that veracity of the information that is now in the public domain.

I am shocked that your decision to respond to my contribution to this conversation is for record purposes and should have no consequences at all.

You seek in a deplorable tone to separate me from the writer of the article when the facts and circumstances in this dispute are common.  You accuse me of continuing to defend my position when the facts as contained in the Prospectus clearly contradict the facts that you have been pushing through Mr. Mutyambizi.

What are the facts that you have attempted to peddle in the public domain.

You have maintained that Econet was the owner of the equipment that TSM partly donated to Econet at IPO. This version of MTN and Telecel International having been involved as financiers in the acquisition of the equipment is not only improbable but is inconsistent with the version that Econet could not have been granted an order of court if its application to set aside the granting of the second mobile network licence to Telecel Zimbabwe.

I think you will agree that it is important to draw the distinction between Telecel International and Telecel Zimbabwe as the latter was a Zimbabwean registered company, Telecel Private Limited, in which Telecel International held 60% of the company’s issued shares.

You have accused me of spreading ridiculous and informed facts regarding the TSM issue yet you have failed or refused to provide any documentary evidence supporting your version that TSM was the lawful holder of the title to the equipment and, therefore, the company was entitled to the shares.

I would like to assure you that the truth will never be a victim to any conspiracy.   Accordingly, you will never suffer any risk by telling it as it is.  I have no intention to harm you or your principals.

I will continue to add my voice on this story until we get down to the place where we all can look each other in the eye because we would have played our part in telling the story.