EMMANUEL MWAMBA HIT:
,………
OPEN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER BY EMMANUEL MWAMBA, TO HIS EXCELLENCY CYRIL RAMAPHOSA, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
By Farai Ruvanyathi
Dear Mr Emmanuel Mwamba
The matters raised in in your correspondence to the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, require clarity, restraint, and fidelity to established legal principles.
FIRST, ON THE NATURE OF THE MATTER
What is presented as “desecration” is, in substance, a contested legal process unfolding within the jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa. It involves court orders, enforcement actions, appeals, and counter-orders. That is the ordinary architecture of litigation.
Disagreement between parties does not, in itself, convert a legal process into an unlawful act.
SECOND, ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa is a sovereign state governed by a constitutional order in which courts act independently. Judicial processes are not directed, influenced, or resolved through correspondence addressed to the Head of State. They are determined by judges, evidence, and due process. Any attempt to elevate a judicial matter into the domain of executive diplomacy fundamentally mischaracterises how the South African legal system operates.
THIRD, ON SELECTIVE NARRATIVES
The account provided reflects one side of a complex and active dispute. In ongoing proceedings, each party advances its interpretation of events. Such narration, outside the full judicial record, does not establish fact. It risks inflaming public sentiment without the benefit of comprehensive legal scrutiny.
FOURTH, ON ALLEGATIONS OF ILLEGALITY
Where claims of illegality arise, whether concerning removal of remains, enforcement of court orders, or medical procedures, these are properly adjudicated within the courts. They are tested through evidence, argument, and judicial determination. They are not settled by public declarations or by framing events in emotive or cultural terms.
FIFTH, ON THE ROLE OF HEADS OF STATE
It is important to be categorical:
Heads of State do not preside over court processes, nor do they intervene in ongoing litigation in foreign jurisdictions.
To draw a President into an active legal dispute is not a legal remedy; it is a political act presented as diplomacy. It risks undermining the very principles of judicial independence that both our nations uphold.
SIXTH, ON RESPECT, DIGNITY, AND RESTRAINT
The passing of a former Head of State is a matter deserving dignity and respect. However, respect is best preserved through measured conduct and adherence to lawful processes, not through escalation in the public or political arena while proceedings remain before the courts.
CONCLUSION
The principle is straightforward and must guide all parties:
Courts determine facts, not narratives, not emotions, and not political correspondence.
Accordingly, the appropriate course is to allow the legal process in South Africa to proceed to its lawful conclusion, with full respect for judicial authority and institutional integrity.
This approach safeguards not only the rule of law, but also the longstanding relations between our two countries.
Respectfully submitted.