Author: TSA Press

The doctors went on strike on Sept.3 to protest against poor wages, in some cases less than US$100 a month.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government, which responded to the job boycott by firing 448 doctors and pursuing disciplinary action against more than 1,000 others, on Thursday offered to reinstate them if they returned to work within 48 hours.

Zimbabwe is experiencing its worst economic crisis in a decade that has seen resurgent inflation soaring to three-digit levels, eroding salaries and bringing back bitter memories of the hyperinflation era of a decade ago.

According to the Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association (ZHDA), the last wage offer by the government would see the doctors earning a total package, including allowances, of Z$3,900 (about US$240) per month.

“Sadly, the moratorium has come without a new offer on the table having been communicated to us,” ZHDA said, explaining its rejection of the offer.

The strike by junior and middle-level doctors has paralyzed state hospitals, used by Zimbabwe’s poor majority. Even before the strike, the hospitals had already been struggling with shortages of drugs and other basic products.

Critics say President Emmerson Mnangagwa has failed to keep promises he made in last year’s election campaign to revive the economy by pushing through reforms, attracting foreign investment and rebuilding collapsing infrastructure.

On Thursday Parirenyatwa Hospital, the country’s biggest, was deserted, with only a handful of desperate patients being attended to by nurses.

Sheila Muzanenhamo, who lives in one of Harare’s poorest townships, Epworth, grimaced as she explained how she had been turned away from the hospital because there was no doctor to attend to her.

“I have been here since dawn, hoping to get assistance but the nurses said they could not help me,” said Muzanenhamo. “They told me to go to private doctors, but I have no money to pay for that.”

Post published in: Featured

Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa addresses mourners gathered at former President Robert Mugabe’s ‘Blue Roof’ residence in Harare, Zimbabwe, September 12, 2019. REUTERS/Philimon Bulawayo/File Photo

The country is experiencing its worst economic crisis in a decade, marked by soaring inflation and shortages of food, fuel, medicines and electricity.

Half of Zimbabwe’s population needs food aid after a devastating drought across the southern Africa region, worsened by an economy expected to shrink by 6.5% this year and month-on-month inflation at a four-month high of 38.75%.

Zimbabwe’s grain agency buys grain from farmers and releases it onto the market at subsidised prices, costing the treasury tens of millions of U.S. dollars. The government had planned to remove the subsidy in its 2020 budget.

Mnangagwa was quoted in the state-owned Herald newspaper as saying that would no longer happen.

“We cannot remove the subsidy,” he was quoted as saying. “So I am restoring it so that the price of mealie-meal is also reduced (next year).”

The removal of the government’s grain subsidy would have seen a 10 kg bag of maize meal, the country’s staple, costing 102 Zimbabwean dollars (about US$6.30), against 60 Zimbabwe dollars now, in a country with 90% unemployment.

Last week, the government removed import controls on maize and wheat flour to try to prevent food shortages.

Zimbabwe’s reintroduction of a local currency after 10 years of dollarisation, coupled with the removal of subsidies on fuel and electricity, unleashed inflation, triggering frequent and sometimes deadly protests against Mnangagwa’s government.

Rights groups say at least 17 people were killed and hundreds were arrested in January, after security forces cracked down on protests against fuel price increases. Police have banned further protests.

Early hopes that Mnangagwa, who took over from the long-ruling former president Robert Mugabe after a November 2017 coup, would revive the economy are fast fading amid a worsening economic crisis and slow-paced political reforms.

Post published in: Featured

I shouldn’t be surprised by much of anything in our legal world any more, especially given the changes I have seen over the past four decades, but every once in a while, I read something that prompts me to question the author’s word choice. In other words, “What was he/she thinking?”

The latest example, at least for me, is a post in ATL about mandatory retirement and how some Biglaw firms welcome lateral partners who have reached that number at their current firms. Good for them. Remember how everyone has  been saying that age is just a number, and that seventy is the new fifty? Are people still saying that? I don’t think so, except maybe here in La-La Land.

Yes, I read posts like this because I am that old. What caught my eye was a sentence about the dropoff in attorneys practicing between the ages of 65 and 70 — a “precipitous dropoff.” The next sentence, however, stunned me with its naiveté: “One slightly confounding variable is the fact that 91.4 percent of partners over the age of 65 are male, who represent a lower percentage of the 65+ population.” Huh?

“Confounding?” To whom exactly? What turnip truck did this person fall off of?

I, along with other ATL columnists, have been yammering for years about the difficulties that women lawyers have in rising to the top and staying there, given the competitive landscape of the profession — oops, business — today. So, for someone to be a teensy bit surprised about the huge disparity between male and female partners who practice past age 65 is not only neither startling nor confounding but, rather, just yet another example of how the practice is still an old boys club in many ways. Hopefully, as more and more of us dinosaurs go out to pasture, take dirt naps, or practice golf swings, the next generation of post-65 lawyers in Biglaw and elsewhere will see more women. Luckily, more women are now ascending in the profession, finally.

After all, statistically, women live longer than men.

I have taken a number of non-legal-writing classes over the years (What? You think I need more? Thank you for sharing.) and what every instructor has emphasized is to “show, not tell.” I think the same applies to us as well. It’s so easy for us to boast about numbers and the purported increasing diversity we claim to have, but numbers can be manipulated in many ways to achieve the desired result. We have only to look at the wreckage since 2000 of so many companies that cooked their books. Enron and WorldCom — names that the young’uns among us probably don’t know anything about — are just two examples.

It’s not what we are saying about diversity and inclusion, it’s what we are doing about it. It’s so easy to talk a good game, but to play it requires commitment to the long haul. The lack of diversity and inclusion did not appear overnight nor will it disappear overnight.

Whether leadership at law firms, corporations, nonprofits, and even bar associations is entrenched or rotates yearly, the commitment must be there and not just lip service as leadership moves from person to another, from one agenda to another. Hopefully, diversity and inclusion are on every agenda.

Last year, while still governor, California’s Jerry Brown signed into law a bill mandating that women be included on the corporate boards of publicly traded companies headquartered in the state. He wondered aloud whether the bill would pass constitutional muster.

Two lawsuits now raise that question. Judicial Watch filed the first, in August, challenging the law’s constitutionality. Pacific Legal Foundation has now joined the fray.

The Foundation’s attorney says, among other things, that the law isn’t needed, that corporations are putting more women on their boards. Glad to know that, but is it without the prompting of the law, or have companies just decided to do the right thing? I hope it’s the latter. What if there was no California law? Would those numbers be the same or even close?

And last but not least, last week I solicited suggestions for an appropriate term for a judge who was being disciplined, or even removed, for naughty (or worse) conduct on the bench. ATL uses the term “benchslap” for a court’s displeasure with misbehaving lawyers. How about “slapback” for misbehaving judges? Credit goes to attorney James Corning. (Yes, people do read my posts and even respond to them.)

Also, what about “slapbench?” (credit to attorney James Forde) or, if a judge is removed from the bench, “disrobed?”  Sorry, I couldn’t resist. ATL editors, what do you think?

---

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

The Sixteen Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence is an international campaign which runs annually from 25 November to 10 December.  But why 16 days? 25 November is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and 10 December is Human Rights Day. The sixteen days are derived from the number of days in between the two important days. Women’s emancipation campaigns routinely emphasise that women rights are human rights so for the campaign to culminate in Human Rights Day is highly significant.  The sixteen days campaign aims to throw light on the scourge of violence against women and reinvigorate efforts and galvanise support to end violence against women and children around the world. The campaign started in 1991 and was a brainchild of the Women’s Global Leadership Institute. Since 1991 the campaign has been commemorated annually by women and human rights organisations in at least 187 countries.

Notably, the sixteen-day period also encompasses other commemorative days which are relevant to the cause such as World AIDS Day on 1 December and International Women Human Rights defenders day on 29 November. In Zimbabwe, it also encompasses the National Tree Planting Day which is held annually on the first Saturday of December. This year Veritas Women will incorporate the day into its 16-day awareness activities. Veritas will plant trees in memory of Zimbabwean women who lost their lives or were injured and maimed because of gender-based violence. Violence against women leaves visible and invisible scars to the women and the community around then so planting memorial trees is seen as a unique, powerful and sustainable tool against GBV. Different things are done to support the campaign such as donating money and a time to assist victims with medical assistance legal aid and other forms of practical help. Women victims often need shelter for themselves and their children.  The traditional way of supporting the 16 days campaign is to wear a little white ribbon but more practical support can be given where possible. In 2018 the Swedish Embassy in Zimbabwe supported a poster campaign which featured prominent Zimbabwean men and celebrities boldly declaring themselves to be feminists and condemning violence against women.

Gender-based violence affects individuals, families, societies and economies at large as human and economic resources are lost to injury and death. Children and men are also often victims of gender-based violence even though women are more affected. Portraying women as the chief victims of GBV does not minimise the harm men and children victims endure. Campaigns against domestic violence aim at eliminating all forms of gender-based violence against women, men and children. No victim of GBV is more important than the other.

 Gender-based violence takes many forms the chief of which is physical violence against women particularly rape and assault.   Rape culture is particularly entrenched in Zimbabwean society. The Zimbabwe Gender Commission reports that 22 women are raped every month in Zimbabwe. The United Nations reports that 90% of women do not report rape therefore the official statistics are not reliable. There are certainly more rape cases than are known and tabulated. The United Nations theme for this year and running for the next two years is ‘Orange the World Generation Equality Stands Against Rape’ This is in recognition of the need to pay special attention to fighting the culture of rape that is prevalent in so many societies and cultures.

The Domestic Violence Act lists many other acts apart from rape and assault that fall under the ambit of domestic violence. Any unlawful act, omission or behaviour which results in death or the direct infliction of physical, sexual or mental injury are acts of domestic violence. GBV acts against women include physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional, verbal and psychological abuse, economic abuse, intimidation, harassment, stalking, malicious damage to property, forcible entry into the victim’s private residence. It is common for one partner usually men to drive the other partner away from the house or impose restrictions to their access to household facilities by changing locks, locking them out or physically chasing them away. This is against the law no matter the reason and regardless of the other partner owning the shared house. Unilaterally disposing of the matrimonial home and household assets in which the other party has an interest is an act of domestic violence which can be legally contested.

Religion and culture are often accessories and accomplices to violence against women. Harmful cultural and religious practices that violate women’s human rights and dignity are unlawful. The Domestic Violence Act specifies harmful cultural practices like virginity testing, female genital mutilation, pledging of women or girls for the purposes of appeasing spirits or forced marriage or child marriage or forced wife inheritance or sexual intercourse between fathers in law and their daughters in law as is reportedly done in some cultures. All the different forms of domestic violence lead to social and economic deprivation for women such as fewer career advancement opportunities and access to material resources at home and in the larger economy.

  Zimbabwe has relatively robust legislative mechanisms to deal with gender based violence. The Domestic Violence Act, the Constitution and the Criminal Codification and Reform Act together provide legal remedies for victims and punishment of offenders. Dedicated courts and registries in Civil Courts have also been established to deal exclusively with Domestic Violence cases. Victims are encouraged to pursue legal remedies and protection and avoid settling cases at domestic level. This is common in cases of rape and abuse of minors where the perpetrators and victims are related. Victims themselves particularly women usually undermine their own cases and the course of justice because they usually withdraw charges before trial. This is done to protect husbands and boyfriends or because of pressure from family members. Some women also fear reprisals from the men or the fear of loss of livelihood if the man is the breadwinner. Premature withdrawals by victims result in the majority of Domestic Violence court cases crumbling because it is difficult for prosecutors to proceed with the criminal trials. The Domestic Violence Act provides for protection and prescribes various forms of relief for victims.  Section 80 of the Constitution specifically provides for the rights of women and protection of their dignity and worth as equal human beings.

Visit our Veritas Women website: www.veritaswomen.net

 

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Post published in: Featured

Dozens of placard-waving lawyers gathered outside the High Court in Harare and marched to Home Affairs
Minister Kazembe Kazembe’s office and to Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) Commissioner-General
Godwin Matanga’s office in Harare, where they delivered copies of a petition protesting against
harassment and assault of ordinary citizens including lawyers by some ZRP officers while executing their
professional duties.

In the petition handed over to Aaron Nhepera, the Home Affairs Permanent Secretary and to ZRP
spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Paul Nyathi by representatives of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human
Rights and Young Lawyers Association of Zimbabwe, the lawyers protested against the disregard for
the law and some constitutional provisions demonstrated by some ZRP officers during the course of the
year and more importantly in the past two months.

The legal practitioners cited the heavy-handed approach of some law enforcement agents in October and
in November, which resulted in the death in custody of a vendor Hilton Tamangani, the assault of
members of the public including women and elderly citizens, the unlawful detention of minors, the assault of
journalists, arbitrary arrests of ordinary citizens, the denial of access of legal practitioners to their clients by some ZRP officers and the assault of Douglas Coltart a human rights lawyer in the course of him carrying
out his duties at Harare Central Police Station.

The violations of people’s rights by some ZRP officers, the lawyers said, will discredit ZRP in the eyes of
citizens as well as in the region and internationally.

The lawyers called upon ZRP officers to operate within the requirements of the Constitution and to stop the
use of disproportionate force, arbitrary arrests and torture of citizens.

ZRP, the lawyers said, should launch an inquiry into all assaults of members of the public at the hands of
some law enforcement agents with the aim of identifying perpetrators and holding them accountable in
order to serve justice and prevent recurrence of violations.

The legal practitioners urged the government to expedite the establishment of an Independent Complaints
Mechanism as provided in section 210 of the Constitution, which will be mandated with receiving and
investigating complaints from members of the public about misconduct on the part of members of the
security services, who include the Police Service and for remedying any harm caused by such misconduct.
ZRP officers, the lawyers said, should be trained on their duties in terms of the Constitution especially the
requirement for them not to act in a partisan manner, not to further the interests of any political party or
cause, not to prejudice the lawful interests of any political party or cause or violate the fundamental rights or
freedoms of any person.

The legal practitioners said ZRP officers should fully comply with the core values underlying the legal
profession and the duties of the police and should be educated on the United Nations basic Principles on
the Role of Lawyers

Post published in: Featured

It’s that time of year again where we look back, take stock of the year in law, count the bonuses rolling in and order another round. With that in mind, we’re throwing a holiday party here in New York, and you’re invited!

So, if you want to grab some drinks and food on ATL, RSVP here! This year we’ll have our party on December 10th at Houndstooth Pub on 8th Avenue at 37th Street.

Want to brag about your bonus? Share a war story? Take a break from studying for finals? Catch up with your favorite (it’s me, I know it is) ATL editor? All are welcome!

Here are the details:

When: Tuesday, December 10th
Where: 520 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10018
Time: 6pm – whenever we stop drinking

Remember to RSVP soon to guarantee your spot and we’ll see you in December.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).

Before starting my own practice earlier this year, I worked at a number of law firms. Although each of those shops offered various job perks, all of them allowed attorneys to take time off for vacations. Each of the firms where I worked had a different vacation policy, and a few had unlimited vacation policies.

Under that kind of vacation policy, firms basically tell associates that they can take off as much time as they want so long as they meet their billable hour requirements and satisfy client expectations. At first blush, this might seem like a great perk, since this policy can afford associates greater flexibility and more vacation time than in other shops. However, law firms often have selfish reasons for instituting unlimited vacation policies.

One reason why firms might not want to give associates a set number of vacation days is because they do not want to pay attorneys for unused vacation time when they leave their jobs. Many firms, as well as companies in other industries, offer employees a set amount of vacation time, usually two to four weeks. Some firms even allow associates to roll over a certain number of unused vacation days from year to year. At a number of law firms (and companies in other industries), when an associate leaves, the attorney will be paid for any unused vacation time.

I worked at one firm that had such a policy, and paying associates for any unused vacation time gave attorneys a number of options. Associates could use their vacation days to take time off, or if they were like me, and did not prefer to go on vacations, they could pocket more money when they departed the firm. That system provides financial benefits to associates and, to the benefit of firms, may prevent attorneys from taking time off frivolously.

However, if firms do not designate a set number of vacation days to which each employee is entitled, they can completely sidestep the issue of paying for unused vacation time. As a result, firms can save a substantial amount of money by having an unlimited vacation policy. Accordingly, firms should not be given credit for having an unlimited vacation policy, since firms can realize significant financial benefits from such a policy.

In addition, having an unlimited vacation policy makes it difficult for associates to understand how much time they can take off in a given year, which may force attorneys to go on vacation less frequently. For instance, I once worked at a firm that did not pay attorneys for unused vacation time but guaranteed each attorney a set number of vacation days each year. Since the number of vacation days was established, people were encouraged to take time off to avoid missing out on this perk.

One time, I took off for nearly three weeks at the end of one year, since I had the vacation time, and I would lose the vacation days if I didn’t use them. I selected the last several weeks of the year to take off (since litigation is usually pretty slow around this time), and it felt great not being bothered and having so much time to myself. It goes without saying that attorneys at this firm had a better work-life balance than at other shops, mainly because the guidelines about vacation time were clear and respected.

However, if firms do not specify how much vacation time each attorney can take, it might be more difficult to assess how much vacation time is reasonable and what expectations are around the office. Ambiguous expectations may not only impact associates but also affect management. Indeed, partners I worked with at firms that had unlimited vacation policies did not respect vacation days as much as partners at firms that had set policies.

For instance, I had a friend — who worked with me at a firm which had an unlimited vacation policy — who needed to take two weeks or so off from work to go on a honeymoon. A two-week vacation is not a big deal at many firms, especially when a number of shops offer four weeks of paid vacation each year. However, a partner criticized the associate for taking so much time off and sternly reminded the attorney to make up for lost billable hours upon returning to the office. If this firm had a fixed vacation policy, the partner possibly would have respected the associate’s vacation time more and not given the attorney such a hard time for taking time off. When firms blur expectations about vacations and don’t establish clear rights when it comes to taking time off, it is much easier for managers to be harsh to attorneys for taking vacations.

In the end, some shops advertise unlimited vacation policies as a great perk, and it might be easy for associates to think that there are only benefits to such a policy. However, firms often institute such policies for selfish reasons, since firms can realize financial benefits from such policies, and not designating a set number of vacation days can make it difficult for associates to take time off.

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Black Friday, in a lot of ways, is like the Christmas holiday it precedes. It has been around for so long, we forget why we are even performing the rituals we use to celebrate it.

When Scott Walker was having a Twitter meltdown earlier this month over his successor going back to having a “holiday tree” instead of the “Christmas tree” Walker changed the moniker to when he was in office, he apparently had no idea that sawing down pine trees and putting them in our living rooms didn’t originally have a damn thing to do with Christmas, Christians, or Christ. Go ahead and go on Google Maps and look up Bethlehem. It’s near Jerusalem. They have versions of evergreens there, and a lot of pines in Israel now were brought in by the Jewish National Fund in the twentieth century. But I’m sorry to break it to you: During his life, Jesus never encountered a blue spruce. Neither did the pagans from whom we stole the tradition of putting evergreens in our houses around December (blue spruce is native to North America, as is the absolutely most popular type of Christmas tree, the balsam fir). Starting around the fourth century, European pagans decorated their homes with evergreen branches local to, you know, Europe, so as to brighten their joints up during the drab winter season. Romans also used evergreen branches to decorate for their December 17 to December 23 Saturnalia festival. It was not until much, much later that Americans embraced their pagan predecessors’ pine-based seasonal decorations as a Christmas tradition. Early puritanical American Christians, in fact, loathed the winter tree-decorating tradition as a “heathen” ritual and “pagan mockery.”

My point is not just that Scott Walker is intolerable (though he clearly is). My point is that not even our traditions are our traditions. They are things we inherited from earlier generations, bastardized, forgot why we did them in the first place, and tragically put on a pedestal just because they’d been around so long. A tradition is hard to change, but traditions were spun from whole cloth in the first place, often for reasons that no longer make sense, and they can and should be changed when they’ve outlived their usefulness.

Which brings me back to Black Friday. Black Friday is a relatively recent tradition but a tradition nonetheless. The most oft-repeated Black Friday origin story is that the day after Thanksgiving was the day that struggling retailers went from being in the “red” for the year to being in the “black” for the year, as multitudes of Christmas shoppers swarmed the mall on their day off to get deals on presents.

Well, that’s a nice story, but not exactly accurate. While the term “Black Friday” itself has been used in a lot of other historical contexts, its first known use to refer to day-after-Thanksgiving shopping was in 1950s Philadelphia, when Philly cops used it to describe the melee that swamped the city’s shopping centers before the big Army-Navy football game held there on the Saturday after Thanksgiving every year (and yeah, the use of the phrase was about as racist as you’d expect). Calling the day after Thanksgiving “Black Friday” went on for years in Philly before it finally caught on in the rest of the country. Starting in the late 1980s, retailers all collectively breathed a sigh of relief as the nation as a whole pretty much swallowed the more positive (and fabricated) “red to black” accounting books origin story of Black Friday.

So, as you go to trample your fellow citizens this Black Friday so that you can maybe pick up a $150 TV, ask yourself why you are doing this. You can put up a Christmas tree and enjoy it with pure motives, just like you can go shopping for Black Friday deals without evil in your heart. But if you’re doing the former, know you’re ultimately doing it because a bunch of people who did not believe in Jesus did it a long time ago, and if you’re doing the later, know you’re ultimately doing it because a bunch of racist 1950s Philly cops got together to crack jokes.

Speaking against my own interests as someone who owns mutual fund shares with a lot of retailers in them, maybe just don’t Black Friday this year. I haven’t been in a home with kids in the past ten years in which there wasn’t a room where I wasn’t ankle deep in toys. Not to pick on the youngest Americans; I have three brown leather motorcycle jackets. Three! We all have so much stuff. We don’t really need the stuff we already have, let alone more of it.

Black Friday started as a garbage holiday, and its transformation from racist cop lingo to materialistic retail orgy hasn’t improved it all that much. I’m going to be doing my best this year to not buy anything on Black Friday, and to the extent I do ultimately give people seasonal gifts, to make them Science Museum memberships and comedy tickets and nice dinners out. I’d rather give a gift that helps build a relationship than just another thing to throw on someone’s treasure pile. This year, buy something intangible that’s going to force you to spend time with good people. Maybe try it again next year. You might just develop a tradition actually worth hanging on to.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

The Senior Hospital Doctors Association (SHDA), a group of doctors, including specialists who had remained on duty at the country’s hospitals, while junior doctors began a boycott in September for higher pay, announced the strike in a move that is set to worsen the country’s already dire health situation.

‘Silent genocide’

The senior doctors described the situation at the country’s hospitals as a silent genocide, saying doctors are forced to work without basics such as bandages, gloves, and syringes.

“We have watched the past few months as the situation in our hospitals continues to deteriorate.

“In March this year, the situation in hospitals deteriorated to the point where there were no bandages, gloves, and syringes available forcing senior doctors to highlight the dire situation publicly. It is important to find out why this has taken so long to be resolved as a silent genocide continues to be perpetrated upon the people of Zimbabwe,” the statement said.

The doctor’s association said its members could no longer cope with such conditions and demanded the reinstatement of those that were dismissed over the strike.

The government has responded to Tuesday’s announcement from the senior doctors by issuing notices for disciplinary hearings against them and advertising their jobs.

“The Ministry of Health and Child Care will publish before the end of this week, an advert in the press for all posts that have become vacant as a result of these disciplinary cases,” Minister of Information Monica Mutsvangwa told Zimbabwe’s cabinet on Tuesday.

“The authorities are so vindictive that they went to the theatre to hand a letter to a doctor who was finishing up an emergency operation.

“For the record, senior doctors will not be re-applying to come back to work. We do not accept that one can be dismissed for being incapacitated to come to work in an unsafe environment with nothing to use. We reiterate we are not on strike,” the doctor’s group said in a statement.

“We are incapacitated like all other doctors, both financially and in terms of tools of the trade. Thus we are unable to continue subsidizing the employer and reporting for duty,” Shingai Nyaguse, SHDA president told CNN.

Since September, Zimbabwean junior doctors have been engaged in a battle with the government over conditions of service and poor pay, which they say has been eroded by hyperinflation in the country.

Post published in: Featured