Zimbabwe News Update
herald
6 min read
Fidelis MunyoroChief Court ReporterThe Supreme Court has declared that legal arguments filed by Professor Welshman Ncube, generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and citing 12 fictitious judgments, are invalid and must be treated as a nullity.The ruling came after Advocate Thabani Mpofu, representing Andrew Zuze, challenged the submissions.The arguments had been prepared on behalf of Pulserate Investments, a company in a mining dispute with Zuze.Pulserate, represented by Professors Welshman Ncube and Lovemore Madhuku, argued unsuccessfully that the flawed submissions could be salvaged.Justices Susan Mavangira, Felistus Chatukuta, and Hlekani Mwayera dismissed this position, accepting Advocate Mpofu’s submissions that the defective heads of argument held no legal weight.“The court has the power to erase these documents as of no consequence,” Justice Mavangira said.The court also dismissed the appeal by consent of both parties, deeming it abandoned, and ordered Pulserate to cover Advocate Mpofu’s costs at the higher scale.“The matter is hereby removed from the roll, regarded as abandoned and deemed dismissed,” Justice Mavangira ruled.The submissions prepared by Prof Ncube came under scrutiny after being exposed as containing multiple fictitious and defective citations.In a formal letter to the Supreme Court, Prof Ncube apologised for the errors, attributing them to unverified research generated by AI.“I wish to express my profound regret and apology to the court for the citation of defective and non-existent cases in the heads of argument I prepared and caused to be filed on behalf of the appellant in this matter,” Prof Ncube wrote in a letter dated July 3.He admitted the errors stemmed from a graduate researcher he had tasked with sourcing case law, who relied on AI without verifying its output.Prof Ncube acknowledged his own failure to ensure the accuracy of the material.“Upon reviewing the respondent’s submissions, I questioned my researcher, who admitted to using artificial intelligence for research and failing to verify the material it provided,” he explained.Prof Ncube denied any intent to mislead the court, describing the incident as a “catastrophic lapse in professional judgment.”He admitted that he had trusted the researcher’s work without considering the possibility of such a grave error.“It is difficult to imagine anything more embarrassing to me personally as senior counsel and officer of this honourable court,” he wrote.“The integrity of all legal proceedings depends on the accuracy of authorities cited.”Prof Ncube also apologised to Advocate Mpofu for the inconvenience caused by verifying the non-existent citations.“I humbly submit this apology to the court and to counsel for the first respondent, who had to endure the agony of verifying these non-existent and defective cases,” he wrote.The case, Pulserate Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Andrew Zuze and Others [SC202/25], highlighted the risks of relying on artificial intelligence in legal research without proper oversight.Legal experts said the superior court’s rejection of the submissions underscores the importance of professional diligence and the accuracy of legal arguments presented before the bench.Leave a ReplyCancel reply
Fidelis MunyoroChief Court ReporterThe Supreme Court has declared that legal arguments filed by Professor Welshman Ncube, generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and citing 12 fictitious judgments, are invalid and must be treated as a nullity.The ruling came after Advocate Thabani Mpofu, representing Andrew Zuze, challenged the submissions.The arguments had been prepared on behalf of Pulserate Investments, a company in a mining dispute with Zuze.Pulserate, represented by Professors Welshman Ncube and Lovemore Madhuku, argued unsuccessfully that the flawed submissions could be salvaged.Justices Susan Mavangira, Felistus Chatukuta, and Hlekani Mwayera dismissed this position, accepting Advocate Mpofu’s submissions that the defective heads of argument held no legal weight.“The court has the power to erase these documents as of no consequence,” Justice Mavangira said.The court also dismissed the appeal by consent of both parties, deeming it abandoned, and ordered Pulserate to cover Advocate Mpofu’s costs at the higher scale.“The matter is hereby removed from the roll, regarded as abandoned and deemed dismissed,” Justice Mavangira ruled.The submissions prepared by Prof Ncube came under scrutiny after being exposed as containing multiple fictitious and defective citations.In a formal letter to the Supreme Court, Prof Ncube apologised for the errors, attributing them to unverified research generated by AI.“I wish to express my profound regret and apology to the court for the citation of defective and non-existent cases in the heads of argument I prepared and caused to be filed on behalf of the appellant in this matter,” Prof Ncube wrote in a letter dated July 3.He admitted the errors stemmed from a graduate researcher he had tasked with sourcing case law, who relied on AI without verifying its output.Prof Ncube acknowledged his own failure to ensure the accuracy of the material.“Upon reviewing the respondent’s submissions, I questioned my researcher, who admitted to using artificial intelligence for research and failing to verify the material it provided,” he explained.Prof Ncube denied any intent to mislead the court, describing the incident as a “catastrophic lapse in professional judgment.”He admitted that he had trusted the researcher’s work without considering the possibility of such a grave error.“It is difficult to imagine anything more embarrassing to me personally as senior counsel and officer of this honourable court,” he wrote.“The integrity of all legal proceedings depends on the accuracy of authorities cited.”Prof Ncube also apologised to Advocate Mpofu for the inconvenience caused by verifying the non-existent citations.“I humbly submit this apology to the court and to counsel for the first respondent, who had to endure the agony of verifying these non-existent and defective cases,” he wrote.The case, Pulserate Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Andrew Zuze and Others [SC202/25], highlighted the risks of relying on artificial intelligence in legal research without proper oversight.Legal experts said the superior court’s rejection of the submissions underscores the importance of professional diligence and the accuracy of legal arguments presented before the bench.
The Supreme Court has declared that legal arguments filed by Professor Welshman Ncube, generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and citing 12 fictitious judgments, are invalid and must be treated as a nullity.
Read the full article
