BREAKING NEWS
Harare – 23 May 2025
Opposition MP Joana Mamombe has launched a US$100,000 defamation lawsuit against fellow lawmaker Bridget Nyandoro, accusing her of spreading damaging allegations on social media — including claims of transactional sex with ZANU PF officials, corruption, and fabricating her abduction.
Filed at the High Court, the explosive suit details accusations by Nyandoro that Mamombe slept with powerful political figures to avoid recall from Parliament, had an affair with former CCC leader Nelson Chamisa, and committed a string of misconducts including theft, corruption, and personal invasions. The claim reads:
………….
“These words in the context of the articles are wrongful and defamatory… intended and understood by the readers… to mean the plaintiff is a dishonest person, hater, corrupt liar, thief of loose morals…”
As this lawsuit unfolds, political observers are raising fresh questions over whether Zimbabwe’s judiciary will treat Mamombe’s case with the same gravity and swiftness afforded to Chief Justice Luke Malaba’s perceived favourite, Fadzayi Mahere.
Mahere recently secured what legal analysts describe as an “irreversible” and controversial court victory, backed by a judiciary many accuse of bias toward state-aligned opposition figures. The same label has been attached to Sengezo Tshabangu, who also benefitted from disputed rulings widely seen as aiding ZANU PF’s agenda to fragment the opposition.
In a scathing cartoon circulated online, Justice Malaba is depicted figuratively “carrying” Mahere and Tshabangu to power, while sidelining Nelson Chamisa — symbolizing the judiciary’s partisan role in restructuring Zimbabwe’s opposition to the regime’s liking.
Now, as Mamombe seeks legal redress against character assassination, many Zimbabweans are watching the courts closely:
Will the same judicial system that elevated Mahere with questionable impartiality deliver justice for Mamombe — or will it continue to protect only those within a privileged political bracket?
Mamombe has given Nyandoro 10 days to respond. The nation awaits the court’s next move.
—ENDS—