Commissioner. In the said affidavit, Chisvo had made statements to the effect that the Complainant had informed Chisvo that the ANZ matter was predetermined. 19. The Complainant claims that as a result of such sustained and relentless pressure he had no other option but to excuse himself from the matter. Notwithstanding the recusal, the Complainant remained under surveillance by state security agents. st 20. The Complainant states that on 1 December 2003, he received a telephone call from a member of the legal fraternity and the Police informing him that the Respondent State was fabricating a case against him and that he was to be arrested and incarcerated on unspecified charges as punishment for defying the Respondent’s orders. 21. The Complainant alleges that fearing for his safety and security; he decided to go into hiding until th 9 December when he fled to South Africa, where he remains in exile. 22. The Complainant submits that he is not the only member of the Judiciary who has been persecuted but that there is a systematic, consistent and sustained pattern of interference with the Judiciary by the Executive in the Republic of Zimbabwe. Complaint 23. The Complainants allege that Articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights have been violated. 24. The Complainant requests that the African Commission should:1. Urge the Respondent State to institute an inquiry and investigation that should result in the Government of Zimbabwe bringing those who perpetrated the violations to justice; 2. Order the Respondent State to pay compensation for the physical pain, psychological trauma, loss of earnings and job and access to family suffered by the Complainant. Procedure th 25. The Communication is dated 2 November 2005 and was sent by email to the Secretariat, and th was received on 8 November 2005. th 26. On 17 November 2005, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Communication and informed the Complainant that the communication would be scheduled for consideration by the African th Commission at its 38 Ordinary Session. th st th 27. At its 38 Ordinary Session held from 21 November to 5 December 2005 m Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the communication and decided to be seized of it. th 28. By Note Verbale dated 8 December 2005, the Secretariat transmitted a copy of the communication to the Respondent State by DHL and requested it to forward its submissions on admissibility within 3 months. The Complainant was also requested to send his submissions on admissibility within 3 months. th 29. By letter and Note Verbale dated 20 March 2006, the parties to the communication were reminded to forward their written submissions on admissibility of the communication. rd 30. On 3 April 2006, the Secretariat received submissions on admissibility of the communication th from one Gabriel Shumba. By letter dated 12 April 2006, the Secretariat of the African Commission wrote to Gabriel Shumba informing him that the communication had been brought before the African Commission by Michael Majuru who had never made any indication to the African Commission that Gabriel Shumba could make representations on his behalf. This letter was also copied to the Complainant Michael Majuru. th 31. As at the 40 Ordinary Session there had been no reply from the Complainant. The st communication was therefore deferred to the 41 Ordinary Session pending the reply of the Complainant and Mr Shumba, as well as the Respondent State's submission on admissibility. th 32. By letter and Note Verbale dated 11 December 2006, written to the Complainant and Respondent State respectively, the parties were informed by the Secretariat, about the decision of the th African Commission during its 40 Session, to consider the admissibility of the communication during