Judge Chiweshe asks court to halt disciplinary hearing over Kereke allegations

Supreme Court judge George Chiweshe has approached the High Court seeking to stop a Judicial Service Commission (JSC) disciplinary hearing scheduled for September 9, arguing that investigators expanded the case against him beyond the issues originally referred by Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza.

The challenge follows a complaint by convicted rapist and former legislator Munyaradzi Kereke, who accused Chiweshe of misconduct, including allegedly pursuing improper relationships with two of his wives while he was serving a 10-year prison sentence.

Kereke’s claims have not been tested in court or through a completed disciplinary process. Chiweshe’s urgent application focuses mainly on the committee’s jurisdiction and the procedure being followed, rather than the substance of the allegations concerning the two women.

On July 30, Gwaunza appointed a committee chaired by Justice Anne Mary Gowora to investigate whether Chiweshe had private contact or financial and business dealings with Kereke or people associated with him while Kereke’s criminal appeal was pending.

The original referral covered four issues: a motor vehicle transaction, alleged requests for or receipt of money, company documents and discussions concerning a gold-mining interest. The committee initially included Justices Benjamin Hlatshwayo and Faith Mushure. Justice Bharat Patel replaced Mushure on August 4, with the Chief Justice saying the committee’s mandate had not changed.

However, a notice served on Chiweshe on August 26 set out six allegations. It added claims involving Kereke’s wives and an accusation that Kereke’s passport had been removed from his home and kept at the High Court without a court order.

The notice also broadened the relevant period to include times when Kereke had matters before the High Court, rather than restricting the inquiry to the period of his Supreme Court appeal.

Chiweshe contends that the additional matters amount to new ethical allegations which could not lawfully be investigated without a fresh referral from the Chief Justice.

In his complaint, Kereke alleges that Chiweshe repeatedly summoned his wife, Patience Taruvinga Muswapadare, to his offices while he was in prison. He claims the alleged conduct ultimately contributed to the breakdown of their marriage.

Kereke makes a similar allegation concerning another wife, Isabel Chirapura. He says Chiweshe summoned her and allegedly offered her whisky and other illicit drinks during late-night meetings. He further claims that an alleged intimate relationship between the two damaged that marriage as well.

Chiweshe’s court papers, as reviewed, do not substantively answer those allegations. His position is that the committee lacks authority to investigate them because they were not included in the Chief Justice’s initial referral.

Kereke submitted a 10-page formal report to President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the Chief Justice on June 18, 2026. He accused Chiweshe and fellow appeal judges Samuel Kudya and Tendai Uchena of gross misconduct and criminal abuse of duty.

The three judges had unanimously dismissed Kereke’s appeal against his conviction and 10-year sentence for raping his 14-year-old niece. The conviction followed a trial in which the offence was recorded as having occurred on May 31, 2024. Kereke completed his sentence on January 8, 2026.

He says he delayed filing the complaint until after his release for “strategic necessity”, claiming he wanted to remain safe while still in prison.

Only Chiweshe was referred for disciplinary investigation. In his affidavit, Chiweshe says the Chief Justice cleared Justices Kudya and Uchena, although the court papers do not explain the basis for that decision.

Kereke alleges that Chiweshe told him the three judges believed his conviction was wrong but wanted to know what he would do for them to “take you off the hook”.

He claims that, in 2022, Chiweshe sent an old Mercedes-Benz to his home in Glen Lorne and instructed him to sell it and deliver US$25,000. According to Kereke, his cousin, Tinashe Mureyani, found a buyer who paid US$24,000 in instalments, which was allegedly passed on to Chiweshe.

Kereke also alleges that he handed Chiweshe US$4,000 during meetings at Highland Park Shopping Centre. He claims the judge later sought a gold mine held through Flickstone Investments (Private) Limited, as well as US$20,000 for each of the three appeal judges.

Chiweshe accepts that a vehicle was sold in 2022 and that discussions took place about a possible gold claim and company documents. He denies bribery, extortion, a corrupt purpose and conspiracy.

His affidavit says parts of the disciplinary record either contradict or fail to support significant elements of Kereke’s complaint. The affidavit refers to accounts attributed to Mureyani, company employee Oliver Ruwoko, law professor Lovemore Madhuku and Kereke’s wives, but does not disclose their contents in full.

Chiweshe was given seven calendar days—effectively five working days—to respond to a 166-page record. Through his lawyer, Advocate Lewis Uriri, he requested an extension until October 2, or 21 days after receiving full particulars, and asked that the September 9 hearing be postponed.

JSC secretary Joseph Mundondo replied that the hearing was intended to deal with preliminary and procedural questions, including timelines and the applicable rules. He said the request for an extension would be considered at that hearing.

Chiweshe argues that the response did not clearly grant or reject the extension request and did not assure him that there would be no adverse consequences if he failed to meet the original deadline.

“I seek no immunity from disciplinary accountability and invite no finding on Dr Munyaradzi Kereke’s credibility or the merits,” Chiweshe said in his affidavit.

He is asking the High Court to preserve the current position while it decides whether the disciplinary inquiry has a lawful scope and whether the timetable gives him a fair opportunity to respond.

The allegations against Chiweshe remain untested, and the High Court application is not a determination of their truth or falsity.