Opinion / Columnist
Chidyausiku a controversial hero
14 May 2017 at 05:18hrs | Views
The late Chief Justice Chidyausuku was/had a vested interest in the affairs of the newly independent Zimbabwe in 1980.(he seized that opportunity and crossed the floor)This was because he wanted to accumulate wealth like many other people who capitalise on such situations.
One would not regard him as doing his job for merely to ensure that justice prevailed in Zimbabwe.
The reason being that he worked under the Rhodesian government and was a puppet of that system.
He was subservient to the apartheid regime which was in control of Zimbabwe. The truth is that he has been given the heroes status because of ruling in favour of the government during the cases of the land issue in Zimbabwe.
Apart from that, there is nothing to demonstrate that he had any interest in fighting for the rights of blacks during the time he worked in the justice system of Rhodesia.
Everyone that played a role during the liberation struggle needs to be honoured for they playing an important role in emancipating Zimbabweans from the colonial shackles. But the late judge does not deserve that honour accorded to him by the government..Mandela was a lawyer, and he fought for the rights of blacks during the apartheid regime.
Chidyausiku was only interested in lining his pockets with money during the Rhodesian era. Those that are trying to embellish his history, are wrong. They are doing so just to thank him for the role he played in the land cases in Zimbabwe during that time when land was taken from whites. The late judge ruled in favour of the government because he wanted to protect his position that he was wielding during that time. Above all to accumulate wealth.
Furthermore, he had a vested interest(repeat), as he is/was one of the beneficiaries of the land redistribution programme unleashed in Zimbabwe. Hence there was a conflict of interest in the cases of land which he adjudicated on.lt is true that when you are partisan in a certain project, one would rule in favour of that project. Lest if they rule against, then that would have a detrimental effect on their interests or would compromise their interests.
A lawyer cannot represent a client to instigate legal proceedings against his /her law firm, because of conflict of interest. And that is why he was not impartial in his handling of the land cases during that time.
As opposed to Judge Gabi, who although was a beneficiary, wanted to see justice done. To conclude, Justice Chidyausiku was a hypocrite in the justice system of Zimbabwe. He put his interest first, before the people of Zimbabwe. He was egocentric. May his soul rest in peace, although he was a hypocrite. A real Judas in Biblical terms.
One would not regard him as doing his job for merely to ensure that justice prevailed in Zimbabwe.
The reason being that he worked under the Rhodesian government and was a puppet of that system.
He was subservient to the apartheid regime which was in control of Zimbabwe. The truth is that he has been given the heroes status because of ruling in favour of the government during the cases of the land issue in Zimbabwe.
Apart from that, there is nothing to demonstrate that he had any interest in fighting for the rights of blacks during the time he worked in the justice system of Rhodesia.
Chidyausiku was only interested in lining his pockets with money during the Rhodesian era. Those that are trying to embellish his history, are wrong. They are doing so just to thank him for the role he played in the land cases in Zimbabwe during that time when land was taken from whites. The late judge ruled in favour of the government because he wanted to protect his position that he was wielding during that time. Above all to accumulate wealth.
Furthermore, he had a vested interest(repeat), as he is/was one of the beneficiaries of the land redistribution programme unleashed in Zimbabwe. Hence there was a conflict of interest in the cases of land which he adjudicated on.lt is true that when you are partisan in a certain project, one would rule in favour of that project. Lest if they rule against, then that would have a detrimental effect on their interests or would compromise their interests.
A lawyer cannot represent a client to instigate legal proceedings against his /her law firm, because of conflict of interest. And that is why he was not impartial in his handling of the land cases during that time.
As opposed to Judge Gabi, who although was a beneficiary, wanted to see justice done. To conclude, Justice Chidyausiku was a hypocrite in the justice system of Zimbabwe. He put his interest first, before the people of Zimbabwe. He was egocentric. May his soul rest in peace, although he was a hypocrite. A real Judas in Biblical terms.
Source - Njabulo
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
