Why I’m Defending Mudzinganyama: Advocate Mureriwa Breaks Silence On Vlamo Restraurant Case
By Fanuel Viriri
Advocate Isiah Mureriwa, a seasoned litigator, is representing Zimbabwean-born businessman Lawrence Chamurwa Mudzinganyama in one of the most controversial criminal cases currently before the South African courts
Mudzinganyama is facing ten charges linked to an alleged incident at Vlamo Restaurant at Sandton Gate in Randburg on 18 September 2026. The State alleges that he intimidated and assaulted several women, impaired their dignity, and misrepresented himself as the owner of the restaurant. He was arrested on 20 September at Randburg Police Station, initially released on a warning, and later granted R15,000 bail. The matter has been transferred to the Randburg Regional Court and postponed to 30 October 2026 for a trial date to be set. All charges remain allegations at this stage.
Advocate Mureriwa’s decision to take up the brief has drawn attention, coming at a time when gender-based violence is at the forefront of national debate in South Africa, compounded by sensitivities around Mudzinganyama’s nationality.
Advocate Mureriwa is a seasoned litigator with over 16 years’ experience, admitted to appear in superior courts in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. He holds a Master of Laws from the University of Pretoria. He is the founder of the Advocacy Centre for Private Prosecutions in South Africa and made legal history in Zimbabwe as the first lawyer to successfully argue for the right to private prosecution in the landmark case of Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Attorney-General among other high profile cases.
He sat down with ConnectWORLD TV for an exclusive interview. Below is the full transcript:
Interviewer: Defending the accused is Advocate Elijah Mureriwa. A man whose journey in the justice system and accomplishments have branded him as a defender against rape and GBV, and a man who takes up cases that challenge the State to deliver justice — as seen in Mupangura v Home Affairs, where he secured justice for a rape victim, and in Telecel v Attorney-General, where he paved the way for private prosecution in Zimbabwe. He was the first recipient of an award from the Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association. Why did you take this particular case?
Adv. Mureriwa: Thank you. Thank you, Kessia. Look, we are doing our job as defence counsel. We do not, as the law says, associate counsel with the offences their clients are accused of. We came in as his defence counsel because the Constitution says so. Everyone accused of any offence, it does not matter what the offence is, is entitled to legal representation. You would know, as a student of law yourself, that this is a very key cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. The fact that we defend matters of all nature — not just GBV matters, but all matters — does not mean that we associate ourselves with the conduct our clients are accused of.
We are obviously assisting in this matter. It is, as you rightly put it, a case that has attracted a lot of attention, for which we understand why, given the moment we find ourselves in as a country and as a society. And we took the matter. It is important. It needs proper analysis of the legislative framework as it stands today in relation to dealing with this scourge that we are all concerned about.
And that is looking at it broadly, given the fact that this is a matter pending in court and I cannot give you specifics relating to the matter itself. But it is a matter that brings to the fore the very issue that is topical in our society today.
Interviewer: What can South Africans expect in the weeks to come as they watch this case unfold? Can they expect some form of legal education in terms of what will probably be argued, and might that help clarify what communities can and cannot do?
Adv. Mureriwa: Yes, thanks. Look, when you talk about whether there is an expectation of education, I would think that is precisely what — when you asked about what victory is in this matter, I will take you back to that question — there would be scope for real education in terms of how we anticipate managing this case.
There will be scope for real education. What constitutes an offence? When is there an offence? This will take into account the statutory definitions and the interpretations given to them by different courts. Yes indeed, there will be scope for real education.
I fortunately come from a lecturing background. And of course, this is an opportunity to deal with actual issues — the actual application of what we teach, the actual application of the law to facts. And there will be scope for education. And that, for me, is a victory. That is part of the victory I was talking about, not necessarily a question of acquittal or non-acquittal, which we cannot talk about at this stage.
Interviewer: Are South Africans expecting an apology from him?
Adv. Mureriwa: Look, he is accused of a sensitive matter. Because of that sensitivity, one has to be cautious about what they put out. And for that reason, while we would deal with how he feels about the issues at the end of the matter, for now it will be difficult.
The structure of the matter, the structure of the process, will make it difficult for him to come and address the public. Will he do so after the matter? After the matter is done and dusted, yes, I am sure we will have no difficulty with that.
We will have no difficulty with it because obviously, ultimately, look, he is going through a criminal process. Right now he is going through a criminal process and we ought to be careful what he says.
As the matter heads to trial on 30 October, the focus will now be on how Advocate Mureriwa turns a highly emotional public debate into a courtroom lesson on the Constitution, what the law actually says, and whether Mudzinganyama will finally break his silence once the gavel falls.
#ByFanuelViriri #crimeandcourts