By Staff Reporter
Constitutional lawyer Advocate Thabani Mpofu believes his hard stance on corruption has made him the anonymous target of malcontents and judges seeking to tarnish his reputation as a legal practitioner.
Following an anonymous letter to the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) alleging a conflict of interest with High Court Judge Munangati-Manongwa, Advocate Mpofu believes the attack is direct retaliation for his consistent exposure of corruption within the courts.
The anonymous letter claims a conflict of interest, claiming that Advocate Mpofu was being briefed by Judge Munangati-Manongwa’s former law firm for cases subsequently heard before her at the High Court.
In a letter dated November 21, 2025, addressed to the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC), Mpofu and his brother Skumbuzo through their lawyer Admire Rubaya, urged the commission not to be misused by anonymous individuals making unfounded attacks on the judiciary and legal profession.
They challenged critics to come forward openly instead of hiding behind anonymity.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu dismissed the accusations as false and affirmed his commitment to serve his clients with integrity and determination.
“The so-called complaint is nothing more than a brazen, calculated attempt to scandalise our clients and the Honourable Judge. It is advanced in a factual vacuum, utterly devoid of evidence to support the alleged conflict of interest.
“Our client, Advocate Thabani Mpofu, has taken an unwavering and public stance against corruption. That principled position has evidently made him a target for bogus, fly‑by‑night lawyers and opportunists who thrive in the shadows of corrupt activity. Their smear is not only malicious but also a backhanded compliment — it confirms that his anti‑corruption advocacy is striking precisely where it hurts,” part of the letter reads.
According to Rubaya, they know the identity of the complainants and assert that these individuals are driven by corrupt motives and are attempting to discredit them.
“The individual – or perhaps the cabal behind this anonymous missive, together with their handlers – plainly lack the fortitude or moral standing to engage the Mpofu brothers directly on any substantive issue. Instead, they skulk in the shadows – under the embarrassing guise of anonymity – harassing our clients on social media and now abusing the offices of ZACC with this baseless charade,” he said.
In the letter, Rubaya asserted that the alleged matters argued by Advocate Mpofu or his brother bear no relation to them.
Furthermore, the single matter for which Advocate Mpofu was briefed was never heard before Justice Munangati Manongwa.
“The allegations collapse factually – they are false, fictitious, fabricated, fraudulent, fallacious and fundamentally untrue. They rest on no evidence, no record and no reality. To dignify them with serious consideration would be to elevate a mirage into substance,” he said.
The letter states that judges don’t assign cases themselves and barring them from hearing matters linked to former workplaces is unreasonable and undermines justice.
It argues the anonymous complaint is a targeted attack on Advocate Mpofu with Skhumbuzo and Justice Munangati-Manongwa caught in the crossfire.
“For the record, whilst we hold no brief for the Honourable Judge, it should be obvious to any person of reasonable intelligence that Justice Munangati-Manongwa retains no interest whatsoever in Munangati & Associates, having severed all ties upon her esteemed appointment and elevation to the High Court bench.
“One is compelled to ask if a judge is to be deemed conflicted merely for adjudicating a matter connected to their former firm, what then becomes of our entire judiciary and legal system?
“Must every former prosecutor recuse themselves from all matters involving the State? Should every former legal officer from the AttorneyGeneral’s office be barred from hearing cases that involve the Government and/or any of its agencies?” Rubaya said.
Advocate Mpofu recently drew attention to a case where his name was erroneously listed as having appeared stressing that he was never briefed or involved.
“What remains is the desperate act of a bitter loser: one who, having failed to prevail on the merits of their own cases, now seeks to “play the man” instead of “playing the ball.” The attack is false, fictitious, fabricated, fraudulent and fundamentally flawed. It collapses under the weight of its own emptiness,” part of the letter read.
