HARARE – Polygamous rapist Munyaradzi Kereke has filed a sensational complaint against Supreme Court judge of appeal George Mutandwa Chiweshe, accusing him of enjoying the company of two of his wives while he was serving a 10-year jail sentence.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has since initiated disciplinary proceedings against the judge, which could ultimately lead to his removal from the bench.
Kereke served the sentence for raping his 14-year-old niece, with Chiweshe sitting on a three-judge Supreme Court bench that ultimately dismissed his appeal against his conviction and sentence.
He now accuses the judge of repeated impropriety.
The allegations are contained in an urgent High Court application by Chiweshe seeking to stop a JSC disciplinary hearing set for September 9. He argues that a committee investigating Kereke’s allegations has expanded the case against him beyond what Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza originally referred for investigation.
Chiweshe filed the urgent chamber application on September 4, together with a separate application for review, asking the court to preserve the status quo and stay “the entire disciplinary process” pending determination of the review.
The JSC is cited as first respondent, while Justice Anne Mary Gowora, who chairs the disciplinary committee, is cited in her official capacity as second respondent.
The disciplinary process stems from a complaint filed by Kereke in June.
On July 30, 2026, Gwaunza wrote to Gowora informing her that, having considered Kereke’s complaint and Chiweshe’s response, she had “formed the opinion that the alleged conduct may have violated section 7(1) of the Judicial Service (Code of Ethics) Regulations, 2012” and was constituting a committee to investigate.
The terms of reference confined the inquiry to whether, while Kereke’s criminal appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, Chiweshe “maintained private contact and engaged in financial or business dealings” with Kereke or his associates.
The inquiry covered four matters: a motor vehicle transaction; requests for or receipt of money; the provision of company documents; and discussions concerning a gold-mining interest.
The committee, initially comprising Gowora, Justice Benjamin Hlatshwayo and Justice Faith Mushure, was reconstituted on August 4, with Justice Bharat Patel replacing Mushure. Gwaunza’s letter of reconstitution stated that “the terms of reference and mandate communicated in my letter dated July 30, 2026, remain unchanged.”
Kereke’s underlying complaint – a 10-page “formal report” dated June 18, 2026, and addressed jointly to President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the chief justice – sets out the allegations in far more graphic terms than the JSC’s later notice.
It is captioned a report of “gross misconduct and criminal abuse of duty” and is lodged not only against Chiweshe but also against two of his fellow appeal judges, Samuel Kudya and Tendai Uchena, who sat with him on Kereke’s criminal appeal.
Only Chiweshe was referred by the Chief Justice for disciplinary investigation. The report does not explain, and the papers before the court do not show, what became of the allegations against Kudya and Uchena.
Kereke says he delayed filing the report until after his release “out of strategic necessity” to ensure that he “remained unharmed whilst he was still serving in prison”.
He was convicted of rape, and the three judges dismissed his appeal on May 31, 2024, sending him back to prison to complete his 10-year sentence, which he finished serving on January 8, 2026.
His narrative alleges that, while the appeal was still pending, Chiweshe told him directly: “Justices of Appeal Tendai Uchena, Samuel Kudya and myself we have looked at your appeal and have all agreed… that your conviction by the lower courts was wrongful. But my colleagues and I we are saying to you Kereke what are you going to do for us so we take you off the hook?”
Kereke says he initially refused, but alleges that in 2022 Chiweshe had a driver deliver an old Mercedes-Benz to his home in Glen Lorne with instructions to sell it and hand over US$25,000.
He alleges Chiweshe warned him, in Shona, that failing to help sell the car would count against him “pa case yako” (on your case).
Kereke says he enlisted his cousin, Tinashe Mureyani, to find a buyer, who eventually paid US$24,000 in instalments. The cash was then passed to Chiweshe, he alleges.
The report goes on to allege that, through repeated meetings arranged at Highland Park Shopping Centre – at one of which Kereke says he was accompanied by an employee, Oliver Ruwoko, as a witness – he gave Chiweshe a further US$4,000 in cash.
Kereke says Chiweshe later relayed demands, claiming to be acting on behalf of all three judges, for a gold mine to be registered in a special-purpose company and a final cash payment of US$20,000 “for each of the three judges of appeal”.
Kereke’s report includes, as an annexure, registration documents for a company called Flickstone Investments (Private) Limited, which he says Chiweshe personally handed him, certified by a commissioner of oaths, as the vehicle intended for the mine.
Kereke’s report alleges that Chiweshe, who was then Judge President of the High Court, repeatedly summoned his wife, Patience Taruvinga Muswapadare, to his offices while Kereke was in prison, and that this “eventually broke my marriage”.
It makes a parallel allegation involving a second wife, Isabel Chirapura, whom it says Chiweshe also summoned and would “allegedly offer… whisky and other illicit drinks well into the night”.
The report alleges that Chiweshe’s “intimate bond” with Chirapura “strained” that relationship too.
On the passport allegation, Kereke says Chiweshe, then Judge President, had his passport removed from his house and held at the High Court without a court order, ostensibly to prevent him from fleeing the jurisdiction.
He says the passport was only released – apparently in error – to previously terminated lawyers.
Much of Kereke’s account concerns Chiweshe’s earlier tenure as Judge President of the High Court, before his elevation to the Supreme Court. It includes separate claims that Chiweshe sat on Kereke’s bail application for more than 13 months without setting it down and delayed a High Court appeal judgment for more than a year.
None of these allegations has been tested.
Kereke, whose rape conviction was unanimously upheld on appeal by the very judges he now accuses, also has an evident interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
Chiweshe’s own affidavit in the review application argues that the record “contains material that appears to contradict or fail to corroborate important aspects of the complaint”, citing accounts attributed to Ruwoko, law professor Lovemore Madhuku, Kereke’s two wives and his cousin Tinashe, although it does not say what those accounts contain.
Chiweshe’s affidavit also notes that the Chief Justice cleared Kudya and Uchena of any wrongdoing arising from the same complaint, without stating on what basis.
Chiweshe’s response, on the record before the court, is partial rather than a blanket denial.
He accepts “the existence of a 2022 vehicle sale and discussions concerning a possible gold claim and company documents”, but denies “bribery, extortion, corrupt purpose or conspiracy”.
He does not, in the papers reviewed, substantively answer the passport or wives allegations.
His legal argument is instead that the JSC committee has no authority to investigate them because the Chief Justice’s original referral was confined to the four financial allegations linked to the pending Supreme Court appeal.
He states in his founding affidavit: “I seek no immunity from disciplinary accountability and invite no finding on Dr Munyaradzi Kereke’s credibility or the merits. I seek a complete preservative order so that this court can decide whether the presently notified inquiry has lawful subject matter and a fair timetable before the respondents consummate the impugned process.”
Two new allegations added
Chiweshe’s papers say the case changed materially when the committee served him on August 26, 2026, with a signed notice from Gowora and a 166-page record, requiring a written response by September 2 and confirming a hearing “commencing on September 9, 2026, at 10AM”.
That notice listed six allegations rather than the original four, adding the passport and wives allegations and broadening the timeframe under scrutiny to cover “the relevant periods stated herein, while Dr Munyaradzi Kereke had matters pending before the High Court” – rather than only the period during which the Supreme Court appeal was pending, as originally referred.
Chiweshe’s founding affidavit argues that this is “not merely particulars” of the original claims but “new acts or omissions capable of standing as independent ethical accusations”, some of which the supplied record places around 2012 and October 2020 – as much as 14 years before the current proceedings.
He says no instrument shows that the Chief Justice considered or referred those two additional matters under the regulation 21 procedure that triggers a JSC disciplinary inquiry.
Chiweshe’s lawyers, Mutumbwa, Mugabe & Partners, argue that the seven calendar days he was given to respond – effectively five working days – was inadequate given the scope of the record and the age of some of the allegations.
Advocate Lewis Uriri wrote to the committee on September 1 requesting an extension to October 2, or 21 days after full particulars were supplied, and asking that the September 9 hearing be vacated.
The JSC secretariat responded on September 2 through Joseph Mundondo, stating that the September 9 hearing was “intended to address preliminary and procedural matters”, including timelines and rules, and that the extension request “will be considered and determined at the hearing”.
It maintained that Chiweshe would be required to attend, citing the 90-day period under the regulations for the committee to conclude its inquiry and report to the Chief Justice, which began running on July 30.
Chiweshe’s court papers say the reply neither granted nor refused the extension, nor supplied any of the requested particulars, nor confirmed that no adverse finding would follow from his failure to respond.
The September 9 hearing therefore remained “operative” on its original terms, regardless of his response, the papers argue.
The urgent application says the matter cannot wait for the ordinary court roll because the hearing is fixed for six days after filing, before normal opposition periods would run their course.
It sets out several grounds, including that the committee’s mandate under regulation 21 of the Code of Ethics Regulations is confined to the Chief Justice’s original referral and cannot be expanded by the committee itself to include new allegations.
Chiweshe also argues that seven days did not constitute a “reasonable opportunity” to answer, given the volume of the record and the historical span of the allegations.
He further argues that proceeding without a stay risks irreparable procedural harm because evidence, findings and recommendations “cannot later be erased in practical terms”.
His lawyers say roughly 49 days of the ordinary 90-day reporting period would remain after September 9, with a further 60-day extension available under regulation 22(5) if approved by the Chief Justice.
This, they argue, undermines any need to compress his response to a single week.
The matter is pending.
