Author: TSA Press

We
all
know
that
a
legal
education
can
land
the
average
law
school
graduate
in
up
to
six
figures
of
debt
(to
be
specific,
on
average,
2023
graduates
racked
up
more
than
$111,000
in
student
debt),
and
we
all
know
that
egregiously
high
tuition
costs
are
to
blame.

But
which
schools
had
the
most
costly
tuition
and
fees
for
out-of-state
students
for
the
2023-2024
academic
year?

The

Short
List
blog
of
U.S.
News
has
compiled
a
ranking
for
that,
and
it’s
not
at
all
shocking
that
almost
all
15
schools
that
made
the
list
are
private.
At
these
law
schools,
the
median
tuition
and
fees
for
the
2023-2024
academic
year
was
at
least
$77,000.
Just
four
public
schools
made
the
list
—
and
we
believe
that
one
of
them
is
erroneously
featured
on
the
list.
Check
out
the
ranking,
below:

1. University
   of
   Idaho:
   $90,336
2. Columbia
   University:
   $81,292
3. New
   York
   University:
   $80,014
4. University
   of
   Southern
   California:
   $78,046
5. University
   of
   Chicago:
   $77,952
6. Cornell
   University:
   $77,593
7. University
   of
   Pennsylvania:
   $76,934
8. Georgetown
   University:
   $75,950
9. Duke
   University:
   $75,738
10. University
    of
    California
    Berkeley:
    $75,031
11. Harvard
    University:
    $75,008
12. Northwestern
    University:
    $74,552
13. University
    of
    Virginia:
    $74,200
14. Yale
    University:
    $73,865
15. University
    of
    Michigan:
    $72,584

Idaho
Law
—
a
school
that
touts
itself
as
“offer[ing]
one
of
the
most
affordable
law
programs
in
the
nation”
—
does
not
belong
on
this
list.
As
noted
on
the
law
school’s

2023
ABA
Standard
509
Information
Report,
total
tuition
and
fees
for
out-of-state
students
as
$45,168,
a
far
cry
from
the
$90,336
figure
that
U.S.
News
has
ascribed
to
the
school.
In
fact,
in

Idaho
Law’s
U.S.
News
profile,
it
states
that
the
$90K
amount
is
for
“Non-LDS
Member[s].”
Hmm,
only
one
law
school
charges
different
tuition
prices
based
on
religious
affiliation,
and
that’s
BYU
Law
—
another
highly
affordable
school
whose
2023-2023
tuition
came
nowhere
near
that
$90K
number.
This
is
the
typo
of
all
typos.
That
having
been
said,
let’s
make
believe
Idaho
isn’t
on
this
list
at
all
and
crown
Columbia
as
the
most
expensive
law
school
in
the
country.

Now,
back
to
the
rest
of
the
ranking,
it’s
worth
noting
that
the
law
schools
that
made
this
list
are
among
the
best
in
the
country.
At
highly
ranked
schools
like
these,
you
get
what
you
pay
for,
and
in
the
law
school
world,
that
usually
means
a
high-paying
paid
job
as
an
attorney
that
will
allow
you
to
service
your
enormous
debt
obligations
in
a
timely
fashion
—
and
to
be
quite
frank,
with
up
to
six
figures
of
debt
to
pay
off,
that’s
priceless.

No
matter
where
you
decide
to
go
to
law
school,
make
sure
that
you
evaluate
what
your
payoff
will
be
when
graduation
time
rolls
around.
Given
the
information
that’s
readily
available
online,
will
you
be
able
to
find
a
job?
Will
you
be
able
to
make
ends
meet
while
making
payments
on
your
law
school
loans?
If
you
don’t
think
the
answer
to
these
questions
are
“yes,”
then
you
may
want
to
consider
another
school.

15
Most
Expensive
Law
Schools
[Short
List
/
U.S.
News]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Hogan
Lovells,
a
firm
that
took
in
$2,682,000,000
gross
revenue
last
year,
making
it
11th
on
the
Am
Law
100
ranking,
is
closing
three
of
its
offices.
Yesterday,
the
firm
confirmed
that
its
Sydney,
Australia;
Johannesburg,
South
Africa;
and
Warsaw,
Poland
offices
will
be
axed,
but
somehow
insisted
the
move
was
not
“economic
driven.”

HoLove
CEO
Miguel
Zaldivar

told
the
American
Lawyer,
“We’re
just
following
the
market,
the
demand
for
our
services
at
that
high
end,
highly
sophisticated
level.
It’s
happening
in
other
places.
So
I
think
it’s
healthy
for
our
organization
to
be
honest
with
itself
and
see
where
the
greatest
opportunities
are.”

In
a
statement,
the
firm
said
that
it
was
a
“difficult”
decision
but
one
that
was
“needed”
to
“achieve
transformational
growth
and
drive
greater
success”
particularly
in
key
markets
both
in
the
U.S.
and
abroad,
including
London,
New
York,
California,
Texas,
Washington,
D.C.,
among
other
international
markets.

“We’re
not
retrenching.
We’re
committed
to
servicing
the
G20
economies,”
Zaldivar
said.

Of
course,
this
does
mean
layoffs.
Approximately
65
attorneys,
11
of
whom
are
partners,
and
58
staff
will
be
let
go
as
the
offices
close
their
doors.
Impacted
employees
were
told
the
news
by
senior
leadership
in
person
over
the
last
few
days.

Despite
the
cuts,
Zaldivar
said
the
firm
does
not
anticipate
a
dip
in
its
2024
financials,
“I
can
tell
you
in
general
terms
that
we
have
seen
demand
continue
to
grow.
We
are
seeing
revenue
continue
to
grow.
This
management
is
quite
responsible
when
it
comes
to
the
expense
side
of
the
equation.
So
we
are
optimistic
about
our
performance,
but
I
don’t
have
any
projections.”

If
your
firm
or
organization
is
slashing
salaries,
closing
its
doors,
or
reducing
the
ranks
of
its
lawyers
or
staff,
whether
through
open
layoffs,
stealth
layoffs,
or
voluntary
buyouts,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
let
us
know.
Our
vast
network
of
tipsters
is
part
of
what
makes
Above
the
Law
thrive.
You
can

email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477).

If
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Layoff
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
layoff
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
layoff,
salary
cut,
or
furlough
announcement
that
we
publish.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

When
it
comes
to
the
Supreme
Court-created
(and
diluted) qualified
immunity
doctrine,
the
Ninth
Circuit
leads
the
league
in
rejections.
The
Fifth
Circuit is
its
polar
opposite,
more
willing
to
forgive
cops
than
uphold
civil
rights.
This
case
would
have
been
dead
on
arrival
in
the
Fifth.
But
since
it
landed
in
the
Ninth,
the
victim
of
excessive
force,
protester
Derrick
Sanderlin,
will
see
his
lawsuit
move
forward.

Like millions
of
other
people,
California
resident
Derrick
Sanderlin
participated
in
an
anti-police
violence
protest
prompted
by
the
murder
of
Minnesota
resident
George
Floyd
by
Minneapolis
police officer
Derek
Chauvin.
And,
like
many
peaceful
protesters
demonstrating
against
police
violence,
his
acts
of
protest
were greeted
with
police
violence.

While
participating
in
what
even
San
Jose
police
officers
referred
to
as
a
“peaceful”
protest
(although
it
did
turn
more
damaging
and
violent
later),
Sanderlin
had
the
misfortune
of
running
into
San
Jose
PD
officer
Michael
Panighetti.
This
interaction
was
captured
on
the
officer’s
body
camera,
which
provides
the
narrative
recounted
by
the
Ninth
Circuit
Appeals
Court
in
its decision [PDF].

The
first
part
of
the
narrative,
though,
was
provided
by
the
officer
during
his
testimony,
something
that
details
alleged
actions
that
were not captured
by
his
camera:

Panighetti
testified
in
his
deposition
that
as
he
approached
the
intersection
of
Santa
Clara
Street
and
5th
Street,
he
had
been
monitoring
an
individual
wearing
a
San
Francisco
49ers
jersey
who
had
been
throwing
objects
at
police
officers
and
hiding
behind
corners.
When
they
reached
the
intersection,
Panighetti
observed
that
individual
in
the
49ers
jersey,
along
with
another
person,
hiding
behind
the
corner
of
a
building.
Panighetti
claimed
that
he
was
able
to
continue
to
visually
monitor
the
two
subjects
because
the
building
was
glass
all
around
the
first
floor.
Panighetti
then
explained
that
he
saw
those
two
subjects
holding
gallon
paint
cans,
and
he
believed
they
were
poised
to
throw
the
paint
cans
at
police
officers.
At
one
point,
the
subjects
pushed
a
dumpster
into
the
intersection
and
attempted
to
hide
behind
it.

The
plaintiff
in
this
lawsuit
was
neither
of
the
people
the
officer
claimed
he
observed
to
be
engaged
in
some
anti-police
violence
of
their
own.
It
didn’t
matter.
Sanderlin
became
the
focus
of
violent
reprisal
simply
because
he
temporarily
stood
in
front
of
the
officer.
That
encounter was captured
on
camera.

At
that
point,
a
man
later
identified
as
Sanderlin
moved into
the
sidewalk
while
carrying
a
sign
over
his
head.
Panighetti
claimed
that
Sanderlin
purposefully
placed
himself
in
front
of
officers
to
block
the
two
subjects
holding
paint
cans
and
hiding
behind
the
dumpster.
In
video
footage
captured
by
Panighetti’s
body-worn
camera,
Sanderlin
is
seen
standing
on
the
sidewalk
holding
a
sign,
and
a
dumpster
is
behind
him.
The
video
does
not
clearly
show
the
two
subjects
allegedly
holding
paint
cans
that
Panighetti
describes,
though
there
is
clearly
a
chaotic
scene
unfolding
around
this
encounter.
In
the
video,
Panighetti
can
be
heard
yelling
to
Sanderlin,
“I’m
going
to
hit
you,
dude.
You
better
move!”
Sanderlin
fails
to
immediately
comply,
continuing
to
stand
in
the
sidewalk
holding
his
sign
over
his
head.
After
only
a
few
seconds,
Panighetti
fires
a
40mm
foam
baton
at
Sanderlin,
striking
him
in
the
groin
area.
Sanderlin
recoils
from
the
impact
and
appears
to
take
a
few
steps,
shifting
his
weight
between
his
feet
in
pain.
He
then
limps
out
of
the
middle
of
the
sidewalk,
at
which
point
he
is
no
longer
visible
in
the
video
footage.

Just
because
it
was
a
“less
lethal”
munition
doesn’t
mean
the
round
fired
by
the
officer
didn’t
do
serious
damage
to
Sanderlin.
The
full
power
blow
from
the
40mm
baton
round
led
to
severe
injuries
that
required
emergency
surgery.

The
recording
shows
Panighetti
ordering
Sanderlin
to
“move,”
coupled
with
an
informal
warning
that
the
officer
was
planning
“to
hit
you,
dude”
if
Sanderlin
refused
to
comply.
As
the
narrative
notes,
Sanderlin
wasn’t
really
given
much
chance
to
consider
his
options
(i.e.,
whether
or
not
the
officer
intended
to
strike
him/whether
or
not
he
was
obliged
to
comply
with
this
vague
order)
much
less
comply
before
being
shot
by
the
officer.

Sanderlin
testified
he
never
heard
an
order
to
move.
He
also
testified
he
had
done
nothing
but
peacefully
protest
and
that
his
standing
in
front
of
the
officer
was
nothing
more
than
First
Amendment
activity,
rather
than
the
supposed
covering
up
of
criminal
activity
by
other
protesters
behind
him.
And,
according
to
Sanderlin’s
assertions,
no
officer
offered
to
render
aid
as
he
lay
in
the
street
after
being
shot
by
Panighetti.
Instead,
it
was
his
wife
who
discovered
him
some
time
later
and
took
him
to
the
hospital
to
be
treated.

The
lower
court
said
qualified
immunity
did
not
cover
the
officer’s
actions.
And,
as
can
be
determined
from
the
narrative
above,
certain
facts
are
still
in
conflict.
The
lower
court
said
the
officer’s
actions
were
a
clear
violation
of
rights.
And
with
everything
else
still
in
dispute,
the
lawsuit
needed
to
be
placed
in
front
of
a
jury.

The
lower
court’s
decision
is
affirmed
by
the
Ninth
Circuit.
This
needs
to
go
to
trial.
Qualified
immunity
simply
does
not
cover
this
apparent
violation
of
Sanderlin’s
right
to
be
free
from
excessive
force
deployments.

Then
there’s
where
Officer
Panighetti
chose
to
shoot
Sanderlin
—
a
move
that
directly
contradicted
his
SJPD
training
and,
at
minimum,
was
a
negligent
use
of
force:

According
to
SJPD
training
materials,
“Less
Lethal
Impact
munitions”
like
the
40mm
foam
baton
Panighetti
fired
“are
used
to:
Disorient
[and]
Incapacitate
.
.
.
Injury
should
be
expected.” The
training
materials
further
reveal
that
projectiles
that
are
fired
“to
‘Center
Mass’
provide
for
the
highest
probability
of
causing
immediate
incapacitation,
but
also
have
the
potential
to
cause
serious
injury
or
death.” Panighetti
himself
explained
that
he
was
trained
to
use
the
40mm
launcher
“to
incapacitate
a
suspect”
posing
a
safety
risk. The
record
also
shows
that
the
groin,
where
Sanderlin
was
shot,
is
considered
an
area
of
particularly
high
risk
of
injury,
and
the
training
materials
specifically
indicate
that
“[t]he
groin
area
should
not
be
intentionally
targeted.”

Pretty
damning,
especially
when
considered
in
the
context
of
the
officer’s
assertions
about
his
own
training
and
expertise
in
hopes
of
explaining
why
it
was
so
necessary
to
shoot
one
person
in
the
crotch
just
so
he
could
move
past
the
peaceful
protester
to
the
less
peaceful
protesters
allegedly
standing
behind
him.

The
Ninth
says
the
question
of
whether
this
deployment
of
force
was
“reasonable”
is
something
a
jury
should
decide.
From
what
it
has
seen,
it
appears
that
it
isn’t.
And
that’s
the
legal
standard
—
one
often
ignored
by
federal
courts
at
multiple
levels:
if
there
are
any
questions
that
can’t
be
immediately
answered
by
case
law,
it’s
up
to
a
jury
of
the
defendant’s
peers
to
answer
those
questions.
The
Ninth
Circuit
is
simply
doing
what
other
courts
often
won’t:
allow
juries
to
determine
the
winners
and
losers
of
civil
rights
cases,
rather
than
just
letting
cops
who
don’t
feel
like
playing
walk
away
from
the
damage
they’ve
caused
to
others.
Panighetti
will
now
need
to
convince
a
jury
his
actions
were
justified.
Given
the
circumstances,
it’s
seems
unlikely
that
will
happen.

Ninth
Circuit:
No
Immunity
For
Officer
Who
Shot
Peaceful
Protester
In
The
Groin

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

California
Politicians
Embarrass
Themselves
By
Calling
For
‘Warning
Labels’
On
Social
Media

LAPD
Officers
Gather
In
Court
To
Bitch
About
Having
Their
Photos
Inadvertently
Released

Monopolized
U.S.
Telecom
Industry
Eyes
More
Consolidation,
Because
What
Could
Go
Wrong

*
Biglaw
firm
suffers
toilet
explosion.
Skibidi’s
forces
grow
closer
every
day.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Alina
Habba
settles
with
waitress
who

sued
her
alleging
that
the
lawyer
convinced
her
to
sign
away
her
rights
against
a
Trump
company.
[Independent]

*
Newsmax
will
face
Smartmatic
trial
this
month.
[AP]

*
Correspondence
reveals
that
behind
closed
doors,
Sandra
Day
O’Connor
expressed
hesitation
to
overturn

Roe
despite
her
misgivings
and
Scalia
was
a
total
prick
about
her
“irrational”
legal
reasoning.
So…
we
didn’t
really
learn
anything
new.
[CNN]

*
SEC
closes
up
its
team
focused
on
rooting
out
companies
lying
about
their
ESG
initiatives.
Because
if
you
can’t
trust
corporations
to
always
tell
investors
the
truth,
who
can
you
trust?
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
DC
Circuit
to
hear
TikTok
ban
case
on
Monday.
[Reuters]

The
insatiable
love
for
power
and
the
domino
effects
of
being
a
student
of
the
late
leader
Robert
Mugabe
who
ruled
for
37
years
have
been
cited
as
some
of
the
reasons
why
Mnangagwa
wants
to
hold
on.

Desire
for
longevity

Close
sources
in
the
know
of
Mnangagwa’s
current
state
of
mind
and
thinking
revealed
a
number
of
reasons
why
the
81-year-old
leader
wants
to
exceed
his
constitutionally
mandated
two
terms.

“The
first
reason
is
his
desire
for
longevity.
This
is
not
surprising
because
he
is
the
late
Robert
Mugabe’s
student.
This
is
the
legacy
of
his
association
and
grooming,”
a
senior
Zanu
PF
official
said.

Mugabe
was
in
power
from
Independence
in
1980
until
he
was
removed
by
the
military
in
2017.

Trappings
of
power

The
sources
also
said
trappings
of
power
are
making
Mnangagwa
want
to
rule
longer
than
is
provided
in
the
constitution.

“There
is
nothing
he
knows
except
power.
He
is
the
only
surviving
minister
who
was
in
cabinet
from
1980.
He
is
not
prepared
to
be
an
ordinary
citizen
now.
He
loves
power
as
can
be
seen
by
how
happy
he
was
to
assume
the
rotational
Sadc
chair,”
said
another
source.

“Besides,
he
fought
long
and
hard
to
be
President,
particularly
with
the
faction
led
by
the
late
General
Solomon
Mujuru.
He
also
battled
former
vice-president
Joice
Mujuru
after
the
general’s
death
and
eventually
took
power
in
a
coup.”

After
Independence,
Mnangagwa
held
a
series
of
senior
cabinet
positions
under
Mugabe.
From
1980
to
1988,
he
was
the
country’s
first
minister
of
State
Security,
and
oversaw
the
Central
Intelligence
Organisation.

Mnangagwa
was
minister
of
Justice,
Legal
and
Parliamentary
Affairs
from
1989
to
2000
and
then
Speaker
of
Parliament
from
2000
until
2005,
when
he
was
demoted
to
minister
of
Rural
Housing
for
openly
jockeying
to
succeed
the
aging
Mugabe.

Mnangagwa
bounced
back
to
favour
during
the
2008
general
election,
in
which
he
ran
Mugabe’s
campaign
as
his
chief
election
agent,
orchestrating
political
violence
against
the
opposition
Movement
for
Democratic
Change,
then
led
by
the
fiery
Morgan
Tsvangirai,
now
late.

Mnangagwa
then
served
as
minister
of
Defence
from
2009
until
2013,
when
he
became
Justice
minister
again.
He
went
on
to
be
appointed
first
vice-president
in
2014
and
was
widely
considered
as
the
leading
candidate
to
succeed
Mugabe.

Although
Mnangagwa’s
ascendancy
was
opposed
by
Mugabe’s
wife,
Grace
Mugabe,
and
her
Generation
40
political
faction,
he
became
President
in
November
2017
after
a
military
coup.

He
controversially
won
the
2018
elections
and
secured
his
second
term
after
again
controversially
winning
the
2023
elections.
As
a
cabinet
member
since
1980,
Mnangagwa
has
enjoyed
unfettered
freebies
for
the
past
four
decades.

Benefits
as
Head
of
State
and
Government

Our
sources
say
another
reason
making
Mnangagwa
want
to
stay
longer
is
the
unease
of
losing
benefits
that
he
is
receiving
as
leader
of
Zimbabwe.

Mnangagwa
enjoys
hefty
perks,
tight
security
and
feeds
from
the
government
trough
where
he

Why
Mnangagwa
wants
term
extension
in
power
basically
gets
whatever
he
wants
for
free.

Incentives

Mnangagwa
also
has
access
to
lucrative
government
tenders
which
are
doled
out
to
his
blue-eyed
boys
as
confirmed
by
the
recently
leaked
audio
recording
of
Wicknel
Chivayo
bragging
to
his
erstwhile
colleagues
Mike
Chimombe
and
Moses
Mpofu
how
his
close
proximity
to
the
President
was
giving
him
access
to
government
tenders.

As
they
wrangled
over
the
sharing
of
proceeds
from
a
US$100
million
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission
underhand
deal
for
the
supply
of
election
materials,
Chivayo
bragged
that
he
had
the
capacity
to
influence
government
tenders
as
he
had
a
tight
grip
over
Mnangagwa.

“The
incentives
include
having
an
upperhand
to
get
tenders
for
his
cronies,
gifts
from
wealthy
associates
and
freebies,
some
of
them
bordering
on
bribery.
His
children
are
in
mining
and
many
commercial
activities
as
a
direct
result
of
his
presidency.
His
wife
is
deeply
involved
in
a
number
of
deals,
including
the
Belarus
deals,”
said
the
source.

Human
rights
abuses

The
sources
also
say
Mnangagwa
is
desperate
to
overstay
because
he
could
be
fearing
retribution
over
alleged
past
transgressions.

Mnangagwa’s
alleged
role
in
the
Gukurahundi
massacres,
in
which
20
000
mostly
Ndebele
civilians
were
killed
by
North
Korean-trained
5th
brigade
in
the
Midlands
and
Matabeleland
regions
during
his
tenure
as
State
Security
minister
is
well
documented.

The
sources
said
the
2008
pre-election
abductions,
killings
during
the
2008
election
re-run
and
the
murder
of
protesters
by
the
army
on
1
August
2018
in
Harare
as
well
as
a
series
of
other
human
rights
abuses
could
be
another
source
of
unease.

After
Mugabe
had
lost
elections
to
Tsvangirai,
Mnangagwa
was
instrumental
in
retaining
his
then
boss
in
office
after
a
brutal
campaign.

These
also
include
fresh
cases
of
arrest
and
detention
of
human
rights
defenders
and
dozens
of
other
opposition
activists.

Fear
of
corruption
cases

Since
Mnangagwa’s
ascension
to
power
in
2017,
many
of
the
companies
that
have
signed
“mega-deals”
with
Zimbabwe
have
either
been
connected
to
him,
his
family
or
cronies
in
government.

Nothing
much
has
come
out
of
the
deals
partly
because
of
the
questionable
track
record
of
the
investors
involved.

During
the
start
of
his
tenure,
Mnangagwa
claimed
he
had
clinched
US$11
billion
worth
of
business
for
the
country.

However,
it
then
emerged
the
bulk
of
the
flaunted
deals
were
murky
and
spearheaded
by
dodgy
characters.

In
a
four-part
Al
Jazeera
investigative
documentary
dubbed
“The
gold
Mafia,”
Mnangagwa
came
out
as
Mario
Puzo’s
Vito
Corleone
(Brando)
—
The
Godfather
or
simply
mafia
boss.

The
investigation
showed
that
different
gold
smuggling
syndicates
looting
gold
and
salting
away
proceeds
to
offshore
accounts
have
one
common
thread
—
links
to
Mnangagwa.

Main
characters
in
the
film
who
sucked
Mnangagwa
into
the
vortex
of
action
include
his
own
envoy
and
ambassador-at-large
Uebert
Angel,
a
selfstyled
prophet
who
is
a
key
interlocutor
throughout
the
documentary
(Diplomatic
Mafia),
Rikki
Doolan
(Diplomatic
Mafia),
Ewan
Macmillan
(Mr
Gold),
Kamlesh
Pattni
(Gold
Dealer
Brother
Paul)
and
Alistair
Mathias
(Gold
Trader
—
The
Architect).

Mnangagwa’s
wife
Auxillia,
the
First
Lady,
and
Pedzai
“Scott”
Sakupwanya
(New
Mr
Gold)
kept
the
President
firmly
at
the
centre
of
action
in
the
last
episode.

One
gold
smuggler
described
Mnangagwa
—
referred
to
in
some
instances
as
Mr
Jones
—
as
his
business
partner.

Another
talked
of
him
as
an
on-and-off
partner
whom
he
still
meets.

A
third
said
he
had
to
keep
the
President
in
the
loop
about
gold
smuggling
operations.

Fear
of
military
reprisals

Due
to
the
fallout
between
Mnangagwa
and
the
military
after
the
2017
coup,
the
ageing
leader
could
be
feeling
unsafe
to
leave
power.

Mnangagwa,
who
fancies
himself
as
Munhumutapa,
a
reference
to
historical
Shona
kings,
was
supposed
to
have
left
in
2023
in
terms
of
a
deal
with
the
military,
but
hung
onto
power,
resulting
in
the
fallout.

He
also
promised
to
significantly
improve
the
welfare
conditions
of
the
military,
which
did
not
happen,
further
worsening
the
fallout.

Mnangagwa
therefore
fears
if
he
relinquishes
power,
there
could
be
reprisals
from
the
military.

Post
published
in:

Featured

OWEN
GAGARE

“I
CAN
tell
you
right
now
we
have
some
documents
which
we
want
to
show
the
three
gentlemen
and
I
hope
I
am
not
prejudicing
investigations,
but
I
want
Zimbabwe
to
know
that
we
have
not
been
sitting
on
this
investigation,”
Zimbabwe
Anti-Corruption
Commission
(Zacc)
chairperson
Michael
Reza
thundered
to
reporters.

Reza,
a
newcomer
to
Zacc,
was
speaking
to
journalists
at
the
swearing
in
of
High
Court
judges
at
the
Constitutional
Court
in
Harare
on
17
June.

Sounding
self-assured
and
confident,
he
warned
Zacc
was
sharpening
its
teeth
to
tackle
three
tenderpreneurs
—
Wicknell
Chivayo,
Moses
Mpofu
and
Mike
Chimombe
—
to
interview
them
in
connection
with
the
corrupt
US$100
million
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission
(Zec)
tender
scandal.

The
scam
has
sucked
in
top
government
or
public
officials,
including
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa,
Secretary
to
the
President
and
Cabinet
Martin
Rushwaya,
Zec
chairperson
Priscilla
Chigumba,
Central
Intelligence
Organisation
Director-General
Isaac
Moyo,
businessmen
Chimombe,
Mpofu,
gold
baron
Pedzai
“Scott”
Sakupwanya
and
the
President’s
daughter
Chido.

Still,
Reza
said
although
the
trio
was
yet
to
hand
themselves
over
to
Zacc,
a
strong
case
had
already
been
built
with
a
view
to
taking
the
matter
to
court.
Reza
said
there
were
no
sacred
cows
in
the
fight
against
corruption,
quoting
Mnangagwa
in
the
process,
and
so
Zacc
would
vigorously
pursue
the
matter
without
fear
or
favour.

“We
have
collected
certain
facts
and
when
that
information
comes
on
the
form
242
and
if
everything
goes
according
to
plan,
we
will
use
this
to
go
to
court.
You
will
see
detailed
information
with
facts,
figures
and
numbers.
You
will
see
those
things,
mark
my
words,”
he
said.

“We
know
they
have
their
rights
but
we
have
our
time
limit.
If
they
don’t
come
we
will
go
after
them.”

Now
83
days
later,
nothing
significant
has
happened
with
regards
the
Zec
scandal.
While
Chimombe
and
Mpofu
surrendered
themselves
to
Zacc
upon
arrival
from
China
on
business,
they
were
told
to
go
without
any
action.

They
did
not
know
Zacc
wanted
them
for
other
cases
now
being
used
to
jail
them
to
protect
Chivayo
and
officials.

Chivayo
did
not
even
bother
to
go
to
Zacc
for
interviews.
Chigumba
and
some
Zec
officials
were
summoned
for
interviews,
but
allowed
to
go
scot-free.

After
that,
Zacc
went
mute
on
the
case,
suggesting
they
have
been
silenced.
Zacc
and
legal
sources
say
Chivayo
is
still
a
free
man
for
various,
including
political,
legal
and
interference
reasons.

Insiders
say
Chivayo
has
not
been
arrested
because
of
his
close
links
with
Mnangagwa
and
also
a
result
of
fear
that
they
might
spill
the
beans
if
cornered,
hence
the
need
to
imprison
them
to
protect
senior
officials.

Chivayo’s
association
with
Mnangagwa
despite
the
current
problems
has
given
him
political
immunity
from
arrest.

“Chivayo
no
longer
has
similar
access
to
Mnangagwa
compared
to
before
because
of
the
corruption
scandal,
but
he
still
has
proximity
to
him
and
other
higher
offices,
which
gives
him
some
protection,”
a
source
said.

“Chivayo
is
also
now
relatively
safe
due
to
the
arrest
and
detention
of
his
business
associates.

“Chimombe
and
Mpofu
have
been
thrown
under
the
bus.
They
were
lured
into
a
trap
to
come
back
from
China
to
be
arrested.
Now
Chivayo
says
they
will
be
convicted
and
sent
to
prison.
So
they
should
start
thinking
about
mitigation.
They
are
not
being
detained
for
the
goats
and
street
lights
tenders.
They
will
be
tried,
convicted
and
thrown
into
jailed
to
serve
a
sentence
to
keep
them
in
prison
to
protect
senior
government
officials
and
himself.

“For
those
accused
of
corruption
on
the
US$100
million
Zec
tender,
the
detention
Sound
and
fury
signifying
nothing
…
Zacc
retreats
on
Chivayo
US$100m
elections
deal
Wicknell
Chivayo
want
to
act
at
all
to
protect
themselves
and
their
handlers.”
of
Chimombe
and
Mpofu
is
welcome.
They
don’t
want
them
out
as
they
fear
they
may
spill
the
beans
at
some
point
if
they
feel
too
pressured.”

Besides,
there
are
legal
complications
which
Zacc
ran
into
after
its
chairperson
Reza
appeared
enthusiastic
to
deal
with
Chivayo
and
others.

One
lawyer
explained
to
The
NewsHawks:

“First,
Chivayo
is
not
party
to
the
signed
agreements
as
he
was
operating
from
behind
the
scenes.

“He
did
not
sign
any
agreement
with
the
South
African
election
materials
supplier
RenForm
or
anyone
for
that
matter.
Renform
signed
a
deal
with
Zec
and
Sakupwanya’s
Better
Brands
Security
(Pvt)
Ltd.

“Although
it
is
known
Chivayo,
Chimombe,
Mpofu
and
Sakupwanya
were
involved
through
Better
Brands,
legally
it
is
hard
to
prove
it.

“Secondly,
Zacc
is
relying
on
the
Reserve
Bank
of
Zimbabwe’s
Financial
Intelligence
Unit
(FIU)
to
investigate
Chivayo
because
they
want
to
charge
Chivayo
with
money
laundering.
This
takes
time,
but
that’s
not
the
real
problem.
The
actual
problem
here
is
that
you
can’t
use
the
FIU’s
findings
in
court.

“Thirdly,
there
is
the
issue
that
Zacc
has
no
jurisdiction
in
South
Africa
where
the
corruption
allegedly
took
place
in
terms
of
payments
and
bribery.
Zacc,
through
the
National
Prosecuting
Authority,
needs
a
mutual
legal
assistance
with
South
African
institutions
to
investigate
the
issue.
There
are
also
several
other
issues
like
political
will
which
arise
that
make
it
difficult
for
Zacc
to
tackle
Chivayo
head-on.

“Of
course,
politics
is
the
biggest
problem
on
this
matter.
He
has
compromised
too
many
top
officials
and
arresting
him
can
be
self-defeating;
open
a
Pandora’s
Box.
If
authorities
wanted
to
act
on
the
basis
of
what
has
already
become
known,
including
media
reports
and
those
dossiers,
they
would
probably
succeed.

The
problem
is
that
they
don’t
The
Zec
tender
scandal
is
far
wider
and
deeper
than
initially
thought:
It
involves
more
than
US$100
million
in
public
funds
looted
through
fraudulent
and
usurious
pricing
of
electoral
material
supplies
during
last
year’s
flawed
elections.

The
various
supplies
to
Zec
were
provided
by
Ren-Form
CC
and
its
agents,
including
Better
Brands
Security,
a
local
company.
Prices
were
inflated
by
up
to
30
000%
and
in
some
cases
far
above
that.

Still,
Reza
had
vowed
to
deal
with
the
matter
and
assured
Zimbabweans
that
no
stone
would
be
left
unturned
in
their
quest
to
deal
decisively
with
corruption.

“Zimbabweans
should
know
that
Zacc
is
not
toothless.
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
has
said
there
are
no
sacred
cows,”
he
said.
Ironically,
the
person
Zacc
wanted
the
most
—
Chivayo
—
is
close
to
the
President,
making
him
a
sacred
cow.

With
wheels
now
in
motion
to
amend
the
constitution
and
allow
Mnagagwa
to
extend
his
rule,
open
disapproval
has
now
begun
to
emerge,
with
war
veterans
in
Masvingo,
the
Zimbabwe
Council
of
Churches
and
civil
society
organisations
taking
the
lead.

The
war
veterans
have
taken
a
stance
and
are
resisting
Mnangagwa’s
third
term
bid,
urging
him
to
respect
the
constitution
by
leaving
office
at
the
end
of
his
second
term
in
2028.

Speaking
to
a
Masvingo
provincial
paper
TellZim
News,
war
veteran
Western
Ezrah
said
it
was
unfortunate
that
some
people
were
misleading
the
President
asking
him
to
violate
the
constitution.

Ezrah
said
those
pushing
for
the
third
term
were
“mad”
and
should
think
again
before
they
force
the
President
to
break
the
constitution.

“In
2013,
the
people
of
Zimbabwe,
whom
we
liberated
through
the
war
of
liberation,
wrote
a
constitution,”
Ezrah
said.

“The
same
people
whom
we
freed
are
the
ones
calling
for
the
breaking
of
the
same
constitution
they
party.
wrote.
Calling
for
a
third
term
is
madness,
the
constitution
is
clear
and
the
President
should
abide
by
it.
So
those
who
are
pushing
him
to
continue
are
really
mad.”
He
went
on
to
say
the
party
had
clear
guidelines
and
those
pushing
for
the
third
term
had
no
idea
where
the
party
came
from
nor
where
it
is
going.

Another
war
veteran,
Retired
Major
General
Gibson
Mashingaidze,
said:
“I
am
a
constitutionalist
just
like
the
President,
I
survived
a
number
of
processes
within
Zanu
PF
because
I
am
constitutionalist.
So
as
a
constitutionalist
I
think
the
President
should
follow
the
constitution
just
like
he
promised.
We
all
heard
him
saying
he
will
step
down
when
his
second
term
lapses.”

The
third
term
call
began
in
Masvingo
province
earlier
this
year
and
spread
to
other
provinces
that
went
on
to
adopt
the
stance
on
the
grounds
that
the
President
should
continue
in
office
to
make
sure
that
he
achieves
his
2030
vision.

The
position
taken
by
the
war
veterans
resembles
a
common
position
within
the
military
which
is
opposed
to
the
third
term
bid.

During
the
height
of
Zanu
PF
succession
battles
in
2016,
war
veterans
drew
their
swords
and
challenged
the
then
president,
Robert
Mugabe,
against
overstaying
in
power,
saying
they
were
the
“stockholders”
of
the
then
acting
spokesperson
of
the
Zimbabwe
National
Liberation
War
Veterans’
Association
(ZNLWVA),
Douglas
Mahiya,
said
attempts
by
Mugabe
to
cow
them
into
submission
by
describing
them
as
a
Zanu
PF
affiliate
with
no
power
to
influence
succession
or
how
the
party
was
run,
were
“misplaced
and
would
not
succeed”.

Mahiya
said
the
former
freedom
fighters
gave
birth
to
Zanu
PF
and
were
the
owners
of
the
party,
defying
Mugabe,
who
had
described
the
war
veterans
as
an
associate
organisation.
At
the
time,
the
war
veterans
were
demanding
the
disbandment
of
the
G40
faction
which
had
coalesced
around
former
First
Lady
Grace
Mugabe.

Civil
society
organisations
have
also
denounced
calls
from
Zanu
PF
supporters
for
Mnangagwa
to
seek
a
third
term,
labeling
the
move
as
“unfortunate
and
illegal.”

Under
Zimbabwe’s
constitution,
a
President
is
limited
to
two
five-year
terms,
making
Mnangagwa’s
current
term
his
last.

Despite
this,
support
within
Zanu
PF
for
extending
his
presidency
beyond
the
constitutional
limit
is
growing,
with
the
slogan
“2030
VaMnangagwa
vanenge
vachipo
(Mnangagwa
will
still
be
in
office
in
2030)”
gaining
traction
at
party
events.

Mnangagwa
has
publicly
dismissed
any
ambitions
for
a
third
term,
affirming
his
commitment
to
the
constitution.
However,
concerns
persist
that
the
ruling
party
may
attempt
to
amend
the
constitution
to
allow
him
to
remain
in
office
longer.

In
a
statement
marking
the
11th
anniversary
of
Zimbabwe’s
constitution,
Crisis
in
Zimbabwe
Coalition
criticised
the
proposal,
arguing
that
it
undermines
democracy
and
the
progress
made
since
the
constitution’s
adoption.

The
Zimbabwe
Council
of
Churches,
led
by
the
Reverend
Wilfred
Dimingo,
has
also
strongly
opposed
calls
for
Mnangagwa
to
extend
his
term
in
office.

Dimingo
emphasised
the
church’s
unwavering
commitment
to
constitutionalism
and
the
rule
of
law,
stressing
that
extending
Mnangagwa’s
presidency
beyond
the
constitutionally
mandated
two
terms
would
undermine
democratic
principles.

In
a
recent
statement,
Dimingo
articulated
the
council’s
stance,
highlighting
the
importance
of
adhering
to
the
constitution.

“Our
position
is
clear
–
the
constitution
must
be
respected,
and
any
attempts
to
alter
it
for
personal
or
political
gain
are
unacceptable,”
he
stated.
Opposition
parties
are
also
opposed
to
the
third
term
bid.

Post
published
in:

Featured