𝗜𝗡𝗡𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗥 𝘃𝘀 𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗢 𝗣𝗥𝗘-𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘.

𝗜𝗡𝗡𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗥 𝘃𝘀 𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗢 𝗣𝗥𝗘-𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘.

As stated two weeks ago, on September 12, 2024, there was a court hearing to address the urgent application made by Innscor, for me to take down content written about Innscor’s illegal GMO food sales in Zimbabwe, even before the appeal of the Innscor vs Rutendo contempt conviction.

As you may recall, on August 20, 2024, Judge Makume found me, Rutendo Matinyarare, guilty of contempt of court and ordered me to take down all content published by me about Innscor, even before the appeal of Judge Malindi was heard in the Supreme Court.

Innscor's lawyers, MVR, applied for an urgent takedown order, demanding that I immediately remove all articles written against Innscor -whether factual or false- as ordered by Malindi, or face three months in prison.

Their argument on paper and in court was that these articles were causing irreparable damage to Innscor's brand, and thus, they couldn't wait for the Supreme Court appeal of the contempt order, without relief. Furthermore, they also asked for me to be ordered to stop making any false or defamatory allegations against Innscor, as per the original court order.

The great thing about the Makume judgment, was it came with an automatic appeal. Consequently, my lawyers swiftly submitted an appeal application within 12 hours to have Judge Makume's decision put on ice and reviewed by a full bench of High Court judges.

On September 12, 2024, both teams of lawyers stood before a full bench of three High Court judges, comprising Honourable Justices Mabesele, Adams, and Noko J.

In the hearing, my lawyers presented their arguments, challenging Judge Makume's decision to uphold the contempt of court decision by Malindi and him further ordering me to immediately remove all articles I had written whether false or factual, before the Supreme Court appeal.

Among their arguments were:

•⁠ ⁠𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Judge Makume failed to determine whether the articles and videos cited by Innscor's lawyers, MVR, actually violated the defamation order issued by Judge Siwendu, which prohibited me, Rutendo Matinyarare, from defaming or publishing false allegations against Innscor and Zed Koudounaris. By not establishing these facts, Makume's judgment potentially breached the Siwendu court order and the constitution, effectively imposing a blanket gag on both factual and complimentary statements.

•⁠ ⁠𝗩𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀: Innscor's applications did not specify which parts of my articles were false or defamatory. Instead, they simply labeled entire articles as defamatory without explaining which information was false, defamatory, malicious, or intended to harm Innscor's reputation.

•⁠ ⁠𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀: My lawyers argued that Makume's judgment infringed upon my constitutional rights by ordering me not to make any statements about Innscor, regardless of their truthfulness or complimentary nature.

•⁠ ⁠𝐉𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬: They also raised concerns about Makume's failure to assess the prospect of our appeal succeeding in the Supreme Court, citing South African courts' lack of jurisdiction and competence to address issues related to Zimbabwean law, food, and citizens.

•⁠ ⁠𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝘂𝗺𝗲'𝘀 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Moreso, they took issue with Makume being a High Court judge, who they felt should not have presided over a matter that was already before the Supreme Court -a higher court- after the lower court had demonstrated a lack of competency to satisfactorily adjudicate on it.

• 𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆: Alongside jurisdictional concerns, my lawyers also argued that Innscor's application lacked urgency, particularly since the company's reputation was being damaged by its own illegal actions - specifically, selling illegal toxic GMOs in Zimbabwe, yet, by simply ceasing to sell these GMOs, Innscor could salvage its reputation.

At the start of the court case, one of the three judges expressed concerns about my conduct, stating that be believed that I had breached Judge Siwendu's instructions by continuing to publish about Innscor and displaying arrogance. He believed upholding the contempt order and asking me to remove defamatory content, was a fair decision.

However, it was clear to my lawyers that this judge hadn't read the written submissions, but, his credit and that of the other judges, instead of reaching an immature conclusion, they requested oral submissions from both teams on key issues.

The skeptical judge then asked questions to assess his concerns, giving my lawyers the opportunity to address unclear points.

My lawyers seized this chance to explain that the contempt hearing didn't determine whether my publications about Innscor were defamatory or false. They also highlighted the court's failure to consider the public interest served by my whistleblowing, which had led to changes in Zimbabwe's GMO laws and clarification on the continued ban on GMOs for human consumption, which Innscor continues to contravene.

The judge went on to ask why I hadn't adhered to another court order given pending an agreement made between my advocate, Simba Chitando, and Innscor's advocates on March 19, 2024. It’s an agreement which ordered me to refrain from speaking about Innscor, whether truthfully or falsely, until all related cases pertaining to this defamation case were resolved (be it today or ten years from today).

My lawyer explained that Simba Chitando had been fired for making this unconstitutional agreement that totally gagged me (stopping me from even punishing lab tests or defending myself from Innscor’s media attacks), without informing me and without my consent.

After my lawyers clarified the facts, the judges reserved their judgment, requesting time to review the papers, deliberate, and deliver a fair and considered verdict.

The proceedings were quite satisfactory, as we felt that even though the judge who expressed that he felt I was arrogant and in contempt, might not have read the papers or might not have understood the papers, but at least he sought clarity and got important answers to his questions before reaching a decision.

I'm more inclined to believe that he had not read the papers because it seems like our judges in South Africa are working under a lot of pressure, with so many cases in front of so few judges, to the extent that they do not have enough time to go through the written submissions before they come to court.

And even after court, it seems like they have so many cases at hand that they never get adequate time to consider all the facts in their reviews.

 The judges themselves even pointed out that their workload was a challenge, advising both legal teams not to rush them for a judgment as they had numerous cases to review and consider over the coming period.

This court case has been an eye-opener, highlighting the difficulties judges face in the South African court system due to insufficient resources and personnel. This shortage hinders judges from thoroughly examining each case, its facts and delivering fair verdicts.

In light of this, it's possible that previous judges who issued defamation and contempt orders against me, were not necessarily compromised, but rather overwhelmed by their workload. This might have prevented them from thoroughly reading court papers or preparing adequately.

However, in the case of Makume J, who found me in contempt, without undertaking a thorough examination of a facts in a case that could carry a jail sentence, is concerning and carries a tinge of incompetence.