PROFESSOR NCUBE’S CASE EXPOSES HIGH CORRUPTION IN OUR JUDICIARY SYSTEM 

BY MANDLA MPOFU 

The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has ruled that legal arguments filed by Professor Welshman Ncube, which cited 12 fictitious judgments generated by artificial intelligence, are invalid and must be treated as a nullity.

The court accepted Ncube’s apology for the errors, which he attributed to a graduate researcher who relied on AI without verifying the output.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered Pulserate Investments to cover the respondent’s costs at a higher scale.

The ruling highlights the importance of professional diligence and accuracy in legal arguments. The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, bench comprised of Justices Susan Mavangira, Felistus Chatukuta, and Hlekani Mwayera, dismissed the appeal by Pulserate Investments Company due to flawed legal submissions prepared by Professor Welshman Ncube.

The submissions contained a dozen fictitious cases generated by artificial intelligence, which Ncube’s researcher failed to verify.

Ncube apologized for the mistake, attributing it to a “catastrophic lapse in professional judgment” and a failure to verify the AI-generated cases.

The court accepted Ncube’s apology but dismissed the appeal and ordered Pulserate to cover the respondent’s costs.

The silence of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and Thabani Mpofu, despite being aware of the issue since July 3, raises questions about accountability and the seriousness with which such misconduct is treated.

The apology from Professor Welshman Ncube, while appreciated, doesn’t necessarily absolve him of responsibility.

The concerns raised about the potential consequences of not addressing such misconduct are valid, and the legal profession must maintain high standards of integrity and professionalism.

The questions about potential censure, personal liability for costs, and referral for a hearing are pertinent and warrant consideration.

The situation highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the legal system to maintain public trust.

The silence of Thabani Mpofu, who was the frontrunner in a case against Judge Katiyo, shows total bias. It further indicates that Justice Katiyo is being persecuted because he is perceived to be a pro-government judge.

There is no evidence that Judge Katiyo is a government official, but the way the JSC sprang up to attack him and the way they have tried to quickly set a tribunal to get rid of him clearly shows that Katiyo is a victim of an opposition plot led by JSC and the senior judges who are bent on punishing any judge perceived to be pro-government. 

The behavior of the JSC and the senior High Court Judges is unacceptable, immature, and undermines the authority of the President and the government and attacks the seat of Justice itself. 

The charges and attacks by JSC are seen as an attempt to discredit the President and undermine his authority.

The clear idea is to isolate the President and spoil his legacy.

Every judge serves at the pleasure of the President, not at the pleasure of the JSC. 

A very interesting case emerged where the Judge President Justice Mary Zimba gave a judgment in a case where no legal practitioner appeared.

This is the same case scenario where Katiyo is being harassed.

While Katiyo’s case was a technical glitch, the JP’s case was deliberate, and she quickly moved to obstruct the course of Justice by making illegal judgments to cover her mistakes.

It is common cause that the JSC Secretary will not do to the JP what he was doing to Katiyo because JSC uses the JP to terrorise judges into submission.

Our Justice system is now under one person who uses judges as his running boys.

The partiality and actions of the JSC weaken national institutions and contradict the President’s mandate.

The motivations are self-serving and aimed at avoiding scrutiny, especially where the JSC secretary becomes the life executive secretary with no limit. 

There is a plot to personalise the Judiciary system, with one judge being groomed to take over as JP and the JP elevated to the Supreme Court with the influence of the JSC.

JSC employs people who are related to and the wives and concubines of the JSC secretary. We will be publishing individuals employed by JSC and are relatives and wives and concubines of the JSC secretary. 

Currently, judges are treated like children controlled by the JSC secretary who tells them which parties to favour in cases before them. 

Sadly, the plot to dismantle the justice system is led by the JSC using Advocate T Mpofu. 

One can ask oneself one question: if Katiyo is not being victimised for his perceived pro-government links, why is Tabani Mpofu not reporting Welshman to the Law Society?

Why is JSC not taking action against Ncube? Why again is the Judge President immune to the same mistakes other judges are persecuted for? As a nation, we must call for respect for our judiciary and its institutions.

Three senior SC judges, Mavhangira JA, Chatukuta JA and Mwaera JA sitting in Harare as the Highest Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of Pulsate Investments Company as a result of a dozen fictitious cases which had been cited in the heads of their arguments by a senior and opposition lawyer, Professor Welshmen Ncube.

The other opposition lawyer, Thabani Mpofu, had raised an argument moving for the removal from the record of those cases. The SC agreed and expressed its displeasure with that conduct.

But Thabani Mpofu did not take the case to Social Media as he did judge Katiyo’s case.

This is a clear plot that runs deep within the courts. What is interesting in this case is that the JSC and Thabani Mpofu, who were aware of this as far back as July 3, are still quiet about this.

The apology is neither here nor there because poison is poison, whether sent through a messenger or personally it doesn’t cease to be poisonous.

The learned Professor bears full responsibility, as he correctly conceded. If no checking had been done, the nation was going to witness not only a misleading precedent from the highest court of appeal but also a serious indictment of our judiciary’s reputation.

If such cases don’t warrant censure, what kind of conduct will deserve such? Is this not a case where the senior counsel was supposed to be personally liable for costs, and possibly referred for a hearing?

Why did Mpofu not register a complaint against such serious misconduct if indeed he stands for justice? Even the court itself should have held the lawyer to account.

The pattern of complaints should be consistent in our justice delivery system lest we risk trivializing our courts.

One can’t imagine a whole case filled with false cases calculated to mislead the court goes uninvestigated. Are we as a society rubberstamping this conduct, or what?

Why should the scenes of a lawyer visiting a client? Is consulting a lawyer not an admission of seeking proper guidance?

Should I then be punished for seeking legal advice? 

Now the JSC has gone into mute mode on both cases for the JP and for Thabani’s complaint. 

If all judges serve at the pleasure of the President, then why single out one judge for punishment? If the Ministry of Justice closes its eyes, then things will fall apart.