Thabani Mpofu Defends Advocate Lewis Uriri Following Controversial Leaked Car Handover Videos

By Staff Reporter

Harare— Prominent legal practitioner Advocate Thabani Mpofu has vigorously defended his colleague, Advocate Lewis Uriri, following the circulation of leaked video footage showing Uriri accepting vehicles from businessman Wicknell Chivayo during their previous business association.

The controversy erupts in the wake of Uriri’s firm rejection of a recent public car donation from Chivayo, a gesture that sparked widespread debate within legal and political circles. Critics subsequently leaked dated video clips showing a discreet handover ceremony involving the two, attempting to call into question the advocate’s integrity and professional independence.

Addressing the fallout, Mpofu declared that the re-emergence of past videos does not negate or excuse the disrespect directed at Uriri, nor does it undermine the principled stance he took in declining the latest public offer. Instead, Mpofu argued that Uriri’s prior relationship with Chivayo renders his recent refusal even more commendable, demonstrating the moral courage required to draw a definitive professional boundary.

Mpofu stressed that the circulated video footage lacks critical context and fails to establish any wrongdoing. He noted that the footage provides no evidence regarding the underlying circumstances of the transaction, suggesting the exchange could easily have constituted legitimate payment for professional legal services rendered. He reiterated that legal practitioners maintain an unfettered right to represent any client of their choosing without facing retrospective condemnation.

While acknowledging that private gifts between friends are customary, Mpofu drew a sharp line between personal generosity and public displays designed to exert leverage. He condemned what he described as manufactured generosity intended to promote intellectual submission, advance undisclosed agendas, or diminish respected legal minds into public spectacles—particularly when such actions intrude upon personal and sacred occasions.

According to Mpofu, the crux of the current dispute rests on a sudden, highly publicized offer from an individual with whom Uriri had grown distant and had not interacted with for more than two years. He highlighted the problematic timing of the gesture, noting that the unsolicited offer arrived just hours before Uriri was scheduled to act in a legal capacity against a party tied to the benefactor. New members who wish to receive reliable daily news updates from Ignite Media Zimbabwe should “follow” our channel on the link below:

Mpofu argued that such grandstanding serves an obvious strategic purpose: to compromise a lawyer’s standing, signal a false sense of alignment, and create a perception that the practitioner’s professional independence can be compromised by material displays.

In analyzing Uriri’s formal rejection, Mpofu commended the advocate for centering his response entirely on professional ethics and autonomy. He noted that while Uriri openly acknowledges his past legal representation of Chivayo and the commercial nature of that history, he correctly disavowed public drama in favor of a response that serves as a standard for legal ethics.

Mpofu concluded that any past associations captured on low-quality video do not invalidate Uriri’s current position, asserting that the advocate acted with honor, principle, and professional integrity in safeguarding his independence