Author: TSA Press

At what point will Rudy Giuliani have deteriorated to such an extent that we’ll have to stop laughing at him out of basic decency? Is America’s Mayor so demented that we must now tut-tut and furrow our brows with concern? Let’s go with not yet! And thank goodness, because we could all use a laugh in times like these.

This week, facing news that he is either the subject or the target of a grand jury investigation by his old office at the Southern District of New York, Rudy Giuliani, the world’s worst client, fired his lawyer.

It’s “silly to have a lawyer when I don’t need one,” Giuliani told The New York Daily News, just hours after announcing his decision to defy a congressional subpoena. “If they decide to do an enforcement, I’ll need someone to go to court with, and we’ll figure that out at the time.”

UH HUH. Well, as long as he’s confident that Adam Schiff won’t “do an enforcement” like he did to Don McGahn, then Rudy’s in the clear.

Giuliani’s two clients cum business associates were just arrested trying to leave the country and charged with multiple campaign finance violations. He’s smack in the middle of the massive impeachment scandal engulfing the White House, State Department, DOJ, and Energy Department. And CNN reports that a grand jury is looking at his finances while counterintelligence agents are all the way up in his business trying to determine “whether a foreign influence operation was trying to take advantage of Giuliani’s business ties in Ukraine and with wealthy foreigners to make inroads with the White House.”

Could be that Rudy will “need someone to go to court with” after all. Seems like a distinct possibility!

So it’s frankly insane that he parted ways with his law school classmate Jon A. Sale of Nelson Mullins after getting him to tap out this postcard to Congress saying Rudy can’t come to their impeachment party because he’s too busy applying brown Sharpie to his eight remaining hairs.

What in the world is this nonsense?

Sale is a highly experienced white-collar defense attorney who assisted Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski before serving as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Which makes this two-paragraph note incorporating White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s letter, vaguely alluding to privilege, and then gettin’ outta Dodge all the weirder.

For his part, Sale insists he wasn’t fired — the representation just came to a natural end when Rudy decided not to appear before Congress.

Rudy agrees that the parting was amicable, saying, “We’re still close friends. He’s still an adviser.” And anyway, he’s not worried about defying a congressional subpoena because, “It’s not authorized what they’re doing in secret. It’s an abomination of due process. I can’t imagine a court would tolerate what they’ve done.”

Paging Don McGahn …

Shine on you crazy-but-probably-not-to-a-clinical-extent-yet diamond. And don’t forget to bring that iPad with the million point font next time you want to go on Hannity and share all your privileged texts.

Rudy Giuliani says he won’t comply in ‘abomination’ impeachment inquiry, parts ways with his lawyer ‘for now’ [New York Daily News]
Federal investigation of Rudy Giuliani includes counterintelligence probe [CNN]

---

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

With the goal of narrowing a growing justice gap in the state, an Arizona task force has called for fundamental changes in the regulation of legal services, including eliminating the ban on nonlawyer ownership of legal practices, loosening restrictions on lawyer advertising, and expanding the ability of nonlawyers to directly deliver legal advice and assistance.

But a dissenting member of the task force took issue with key recommendations, arguing that the solution to the access-to-justice problem is not to create “new industries that will continue to consume the public’s money,” but rather to create a court system that is “simpler and more efficient” for the average citizen.

In calling for elimination of the ban on non-lawyer ownership, the Arizona recommendations are similar to those made recently by a task force in Utah, where the Supreme Court approved the recommendations and ordered that steps be taken to implement a new regulatory structure to oversee alternative legal services providers.

Related: LawNext Episode 55: Utah’s Bold Experiment to Reimagine Legal Services.

A California task force has also called for such changes.

In its report issued Oct. 4, the Arizona Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services made a series of recommendations intended to address the state’s gap in access to justice. The most significant would be elimination of the professional-conduct rules that prohibit lawyers and nonlawyers from co-owning businesses that engage in the practice of law.

The prohibition on partnering with nonlawyers “was not rooted in protecting the public but in economic protectionism,” said the report, which went on to say that there is no evidence that such partnerships harm the public.

“The legal profession cannot continue to pretend that lawyers operate in a vacuum, surrounded and aided only by other lawyers or that lawyers practice law in a hierarchy in which only lawyers should be owners,” the report said. “Nonlawyers are instrumental in helping lawyers deliver legal services, and they bring valuable skills to the table.”

In calling for elimination of the ban on nonlawyer ownership, the task force stopped short of making a recommendation on how such entities should be regulated. While Utah is beginning work to create a new regulatory body to oversee nontraditional legal services providers, the Arizona task force said it did not have time to explore in detail the advisability of such regulation. Rather, it recommended that the state should explore that concept going forward.

The task force also called for development of a tier of nonlawyer legal service providers, or “limited license legal practitioners,” who would be qualified by education, training and examination to provide limited legal services, including representation in court and administrative proceedings.

These would be similar to Washington state’s limited license legal technicians and Utah’s licensed paralegal practitioners.

The task force did not recommend specific details of how such a program would be structured. Rather it recommended that the Arizona Supreme Court appoint a steering committee to establish the appropriate parameters. However, the task force recommended that one of the first focus areas for LLLPs should be family law, “as this is where the greatest need lies.”

Other Recommendations

Other recommendations included:

• Loosen rules governing lawyer advertising, including by eliminating the prohibition against giving anything of value for referring a potential client – a rule that has limited lawyers’ participation in for-profit referral services. “There is no quantifiable data evidencing that for-profit referral services or even paying for referrals confuses or harms consumers,” the report said.
• Promote wider use of unbundled legal services through education and information. Although Arizona has permitted unbundled legal services since 2003, lack of understanding by both lawyers and the public limit their availability, the report found. To counter this, the courts and the bar should promote use of these services through education and public-information programs.
• Clarify when law students and recent law school graduates may practice law and what services they may provide.
• Clarify rules regarding the unauthorized practice of law.
• Formally institute the Licensed Legal Advocate Pilot developed by the Innovation for Justice Program at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, to create a new tier of legal service provider that would provide services to domestic violence survivors.
• Initiate a document preparer program, proposed by the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education, which would allow lay advocates to prepare legal documents for victims of domestic violence receiving services the foundation’s Domestic Violence Legal Assistance Program.
• Expand Arizona’s Legal Document Preparers program in various ways, including by allowing them to speak in court when addressed by a judge.
• Encourage courts to establish programs by which nonlawyers located within a court are available to provide legal information directly to self-represented litigants.

One Member Dissents

In an opposition statement that accompanied the report, task force member Peter B. Swann, chief judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division I, took issue with the recommendations to allow nonlawyer ownership and to create a program of LLLTs.

While agreeing with the overall premise that legal services are too expensive and that most citizens are priced out of the ability to secure meaningful justice through the courts, Judge Swann said that the task force failed to examine the barriers inherent in the system – “understaffing, which contributes to delay and cost, and bloated, one-size-fits-all procedural rules that are designed for the most complex cases.”

“The recommendations then take an odd turn: rather than examining the reasons that the system is so difficult and expensive to navigate, the Task Force’s first recommendation is to cast aside ethical rules in an effort to make the practice of law more profitable,” Judge Swann wrote. “Such a proposal would make Arizona unique in the nation, and a leader in the race to the bottom of legal ethics.”

Judge Swann was particularly critical of the task force’s reliance in making several of its recommendations on the so-called Henderson report — the Legal Market Landscape Report written in July 2018 by William D. Henderson, professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, for the State Bar of California.

Related: LawNext Episode 9: Bill Henderson on Changing the Non-Lawyer Ownership Rules.

“The fact that a professor has ‘called out’ ethical rules is, to my mind, no more persuasive than the fact that a substantial part of the population has ‘called out’ lawyers as greedy crooks. Both beliefs are no doubt sincere – I submit that neither is correct.”

The task force was chaired by Ann A. Scott Timmer, vice chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, and its members included judges, court administrators, lawyers, academics, and members of the public.

This week, we celebrated my daughter’s ninth birthday. Like many parents, I love retelling her birth story.  Amongst the details of her long-awaited cesarean birth is of course a lesson in trusts and estates.

In the preoperative room, nervously waiting for my  second child’s arrival, a nurse dutifully asked me if I had a health care proxy. It was like music to my ears. She was speaking my language. And out of my tote bag, under the newborn take-home outfit, the big-brother gift, and my hospital pajamas, I pulled out a health care proxy. In triplicate. I would like to think that the nurse was impressed, however, I think she was a bit taken aback by my preparedness and assertiveness in offering her an advanced directive. In triplicate.

It is not uncommon for individuals to be asked to sign a health care proxy when they are admitted into a hospital. Unfortunately these are not the best conditions under which one should be contemplating such a serious document. A health care proxy nominates an agent to make medical decisions in the event the patient is unable to make decisions for herself. A health care proxy can come into use under many circumstances. Someone may become temporarily incapacitated and may need an agent to make decisions regarding operations, procedures, or even discharge plans. Nerves, fear, and pain may cloud one’s thinking when executing a health care proxy prior to a medical procedure or worse in the midst of a health crisis. It should therefore be reviewed and executed during a period of calm when a hospitalization is not impending.

The birthing floor is generally thought of as the happiest place in a hospital. This does not obviate the need, however, for a parent to establish a health care proxy. Unfortunately, complications may occur during and following childbirth.  A power of attorney should also be executed so that in the event of incapacity, an agent can have access to the principal’s finances in order to pay bills, marshal monies, and apply for benefits.

All adults, regardless of whether they have children or not,  should execute a last will and testament. For parents, this is especially important because the document nominates a guardian to raise minor children in the event of death. The last will and testament may also nominate a trustee to manage the minor’s monies. A trustee may manage the assets during a child’s infancy, but also through adulthood, if a testator wishes.

Sometimes first-time parents will contact me during their pregnancy to inquire as to the execution of a last will and testament, prior to birthing their baby. Obviously, I appreciate this kind of zeal, however, there are certain considerations one may wish to review before appointing a guardian under their last wills and testaments. At a minimum, however, the discussion should begin.

In choosing a guardian, one must select an individual whom you trust to raise your child safely.  While you can choose someone who generally shares your values, you must recognize that it is impossible to find a guardian who will raise your child exactly as you would. Also, the last will and testament does not indicate bedtimes and food choices and school choices. It is often stated that testators cannot control from the grave. They also cannot raise their children.

As an expectant parent, it is prudent to start the conversation as to who the best guardian is in the event of tragedy. It is also important to understand that familial and friend relationships can change once a baby is born and that might affect your choice of a guardian. Family dynamics are affected by life events such as births and deaths. A distant sister may become a doting aunt upon the birth of a niece. Conversely, a grandparent may disappoint in terms of his generosity of time and resources.

From a legal perspective, a last will and testament can include both present and future children. In the event there are no children born when you execute, as long as the document is drafted correctly, one can make directions as to raising the future children. Similarly, if you execute a last will and have future children, there is generally no need to redo the last will based on the new family member, assuming the last will is drafted to include afterborn children. Having the last wills, health care proxies, and powers of attorney already intact will surely make your hospital bag a lot lighter the second time around.

---

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com. 

Less work done? Exodus of top staffers? Floors full of empty offices? Infighting? A pervasive climate of fear, set at the very top? Whistleblower complaints? The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is really starting to feel at home in Donald Trump’s America.

The regulator has issued 27% fewer audit-inspection reports this year, board data show, as senior staff positions remain unfilled for months….

Republicans had urged the SEC for years to give Mr. Duhnke the job, which pays about $670,000 annually…. Within months of arriving, Mr. Duhnke began pushing out longtime senior executives, according to the whistleblower letter and people familiar with the matter.… The whistleblower letter said the regulator “is permeated by a sense of fear,” due to “the numerous terminations … [some] driven by retaliation….” The board’s website shows around 50 permanent roles need to be filled, out of about 850.

Audit Watchdog Plagued by Internal Strife, Whistleblower Claims [WSJ]

The robot invasion is bound to happen any day now, and when the robots get here, I plan to be on their good side. That’s why I make it a point to welcome each and every potential robot overlord on Twitter. Better safe than sorry, I always say.

And when the robots get here, you can bet there’ll be a few robot lawyers in their midst. Personally, I plan to roll out the red carpet upon their arrival, but I doubt most other lawyers will be as accepting. You see, lawyers don’t always embrace change and innovation, and robot lawyers — well, they represent a whole lot of both.

Of course, this begs the question: Should lawyers resist the robot lawyer invasion and does it actually pose a threat to the legal profession as we know it? Those are heady questions and rather than tackle them myself, I’ve decided to hand off the task to a bunch of law professors. Specifically, the ones who wrote chapters on the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession in a recently released book on disruption in the legal industry: New Suits – Appetite for Disruption in the Legal World.

I was pleasantly surprised when this book unexpectedly arrived on my doorstep, since it’s a topic that’s right up my alley. It turns out that Michele DeStefano, one of the book’s editors, was kind enough to send me a complimentary review copy of this book. I previously reviewed another book of hers on innovation in the legal profession here, and you’ll find two chapters written by her on that same topic in this new book, too.

But given my peculiar obsession with robots, it was the chapters on the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal industry that caught my eye as I skimmed over the table of contents.

This topic was first tackled in Chapter 11, “Lawyer Bots: Rise of the Machines,” written by Dr. Christian Öhner and Dr. Silke Graf. I read that chapter with interest and was nodding in agreement by the end of the chapter, when the authors reached this conclusion:

We are convinced that Lawyer Bots will revolutionize many aspects of law and much of the legal industry. And if the established legal industry will not deploy them, sooner or later somebody else will. But these changes are, in the opinion of the authors, not to be dreaded. At least, not by those who are focussing on their creative potential. Lawyer Bots will help us getting rid of much of the mundane work, which is not desirable to do anyway, truth be told.”

Of course, whenever I read predictions like that one, I find myself wondering which practice areas are most susceptible to the robot invasion. In other words, can certain aspects of the practice of law truly be automated? Or are the higher-level analytical tasks performed by lawyers inexorably intertwined with the more routine transactional tasks that could arguably be automated?

While pondering this issue, I moved onto another AI-focused chapter, Chapter 21 written by Luis Ackerman entitled “Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Legal Systems.” In that chapter, I found the Holy Grail: A handy chart that broke down legal tasks and predicted which ones were most likely to be impacted by automation (obtained from a law review article authored by Dan Remus and Frank Levy).

According to Remus and Levy, those legal tasks deemed to have the potential to be heavily impacted by AI are: Document review, document drafting, case administration and management, legal research, document management, and legal writing. Those predicted to be moderately impacted by AI are: Due diligence, legal analysis and strategy, and other communications/interactions. Finally, the tasks that would likely be least impacted by AI are: Fact investigation, advising clients, court appearances and preparation, and negotiation.

So, now that you know what to expect and which tasks you’ll have to hand over when the lawyer robots take over, you might be wondering: What’s a forward-thinking lawyer to do?

No need to waste precious time pondering that question, dear readers! I’ve got you covered. At the conclusion of the chapter, the authors tackled that very query and made this dire prediction: The lawyer robots are coming; adapt or die.

Okay, that’s not really what they said. But it’s awfully close:

(Legal) professionals who refuse to adapt to technological progress will continue to have a job in the foreseeable future, but they will soon be playing in a different league than their digitally augmented competitors.

The shift to Advanced Legal Systems is going to require quite some time and resources, but the competitive advantage will pay off quickly–especially for early adopters (and the rest will inevitably have to follow). Our advice to all those hungry for disruption: Act now, from a position of strength, rethink your IT strategy, free from preconceptions, and be bold enough to not only consider radical change but actually realize it.

In other words, ready or not, here they come! And, I don’t know about you, but I, for one, welcome our new robot lawyer overlords. #robotlawyer #robotoverlord #robotinvasion

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

* Big verdicts — like the $8B Johnson & Johnson award — are forcing in-house counsel to reconsider how they approach litigation and settlement. Apparently rethinking “committing torts” isn’t on the table. [Corporate Counsel]

* Investigation suggests an “endemic” culture of sexual harassment and bullying at Jones Day’s London office. Try with all your might to put on a surprised face. [American Lawyer]

* Bill seeks to give Supreme Court justices international protection. It’s all coming together for the Marshal of the Supreme Court power grab. [National Law Journal]

* Panama Papers principals sue to stop Netflix movie based on their exploits. [Hollywood Reporter]

* New York removes the loophole that would have ended state criminal prosecutions based on federal pardons. [NBC News]

* Exxon will face a bench trial on claims that it defrauded the public over the risks of climate change. [Law360]

* Mayer Brown partner tells Chambers to add more ranked women or to leave him off their list. [Legal Cheek]

Update on Government Gazettes and Statutory Instruments
Part 1

The purpose of this bulletin and another to follow soon is to provide, in two Parts, an update on Government Gazettes and statutory instruments from 1st August to date which have not been noted previously in our bulletins.  Please note that a searchable numerical list of all statutory instruments of 2019 from 1st January up to and including 30th September is available on the Veritas website [link  to list].

Statutory Instruments to Implement Supplementary Budget

We start with a group of statutory instruments implementing measures in the Supplementary Budget of 1st August which the Minister of Finance decided could be enacted into law by statutory instrument rather than having to wait for the Finance (No. 2) Bill to be approved by Parliament and gazetted as the Finance (No. 2) Act on 21st August.

Excise tax on liquor and fuels SIs 160 and 161 below were published in a Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 1st August, released by the Government Printer as the Minister ended his Supplementary Budget presentation to the National Assembly.

SI 160/2019 [link] sets out the new rates of excise duty on liquor, effective on and after 2nd August 2019.

SI 161/2019 [link] sets out the new rates of excise duty on petrol, diesel and kerosene.  The SI also contains provision allowing companies with free funds to import these fuel entirely for use in their production process and pay the duty in foreign funds; the same facility will be open to designated fuel stations authorised to sell fuel in foreign currency.

Customs duty rebate for Electrical Manufacturers

SI 167/2019 [link], gazetted on 9th August, is the eighth amendment to SI 378/2019, which is the basis for this rebate.  It expands Part D of the list of items qualifying for the rebate [items for the manufacture of sound amplifiers and speaker systems].

It also obliges manufacturers benefiting from the rebate to submit an annual report to the Minister showing incremental employment levels achieved, capacity utilisation levels, value of new investments, growth in output, R & D initiatives; the report on 2019 must be submitted by end of January 2020, and so on for subsequent years.  Failure to report will be penalised by withdrawal of the rebate and liability to pay the rebated duty for the year in question.  The new fees were effective from 9th August.

Foreign currency dutiable goods: relief for specified manufacturers  

SI 170/2019 [link] gazetted on 9th August – with effect from 9th August – provides for an exemption from the obligation to pay duty in foreign currency, to a list of named manufacturers and in respect of ring-fenced quantities of specified goods.

Vehicle registration and licensing – fees in ZWL$

SI 171/2019 [link] gazetted on 9th August lists in ZWL$ new fees for registration and licensing of vehicles: for example, ZWL$ 300,00 for licensing a light motor vehicle weighing up to 1, 500 kg for twelve months.

Licensing of drivers – fees in ZWL$

SI 173/2019 [link], gazetted on 9th August, lists in ZWL$ new fees payable for all aspects of licensing of drivers, including applications for learner’s licences, certificates of competency, driver’s licences of all classes and duplicate licences and certificates. The new fees were effective from 9th August.

Toll fees for National Road Network and Limpopo Bridge at Beitbridge border

SI 172/2019 [link], gazetted on 9th August, lists in ZWL$ the new fees payable at tolling points on the national road network.  The new fees are effective from 9th August.

SI 174/2019 [link], gazetted on 9th August, lists in US$ and SA Rand the fees payable for use, whether inward or outward bound, of the new Limpopo Bridge at the Beitbridge Border Post.  The fees were previously stated in US$ only, and these figures remain unchanged.

Courts, Master’s Office and Deputy Sheriffs: New Fees Denominated in ZWL Dollars

Gazette of 9th September

High Court 

SI 187/2019 [link] – High Court (Civil Cases) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (No. 10)

Note: An error in the Schedule, item 2 [“Original summons sounding in money”], was corrected by SI 207/2019 of 20th September [link].

Magistrates Court

SI 188/2019 [link] – Magistrates Court (Civil) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (No. 1).

Gazette of 13th September

Master’s Office

SI 192/2019 [link] – Administration of Estates (Master’s Office) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2019 (No. 8)

Constitutional Court

SI 193/2019 [link] – Constitutional Court (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (No. 1)

Customary Courts

SI 194/2019 [link] – Customary Law and Local Courts (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (No. 9)

Labour Court

SI 195/2019 [link] – Labour Court (Fees) Regulations, 2019

Small Claims Courts

SI 196/2019 [link] – Small Claims Courts (General) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (No. 6)

Supreme Court

SI 197/2019 [link] – Supreme Court (Fees) (Civil Cases) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (No. 7)

Deputy Sheriffs’ Fees and Allowances

SI 198/2019 [link] – High Court (Fees and Allowances) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (No. 22) , amending SI 82/2000, and repealing SIs 109/2012 and 58/2016.

Collective Bargaining Agreements in ZWL Dollars

Insurance Industry

SI 165/2019 [link], gazetted 9th August, sets out wages and allowances for the period January  to June 2019 following an arbitral award issued on 17th April 2019, to be reviewed for the period July to December.

Mining Industry

SI 175/2019 [link], gazetted 23rd August, sets out the minimum earnings for 2019 for workers in the Mining Industry.  The agreement is stated to be subject to review on a quarterly basis, based on the prevailing economic situation in the industry.

Agricultural Industry (General Agriculture)

SI 177/2019 [link], gazetted 23rd August, sets out new minimum wages for the effective from 15th May.

Tobacco Industry – Tobacco (Miscellaneous) Sector

SI 178/2019 [link], gazetted 23rd August, sets out an agreement applicable to the fixing minimum wages and allowances for the three months July, August and September.

Tobacco Industry [Cigarette and Tobacco Manufacturing sector]

SI 179/2019 [link] and SI 180/2019 [link], gazetted 23rd August, cover wages and night shift allowance for the for the periods January 2018 to June 2019 and July to December 2019, respectively.

Civil aviation: New Personnel Licensing Regulations

SI 176/2019 [link], gazetted on 16th August, was the latest in a series of statutory instruments updating regulations under the Civil Aviation Act.  It sets out the new regulations on licensing of pilots, engineering and other personnel in a substantial A4 book.

Dams Declared “Inland Waters”

SI 166/2019 [link], gazetted on 9th August, declares six dams to be inland waters for the purposes of the Inland Waters Shipping Act: Tugwi-Mukosi; Mazowe; Acadia; Zhove; White Waters; and Mtshabezi dams.  The effect of the declaration that the Act, and the regulations made under it, will now apply to these dams.  The Act and regulations provide for such matters as registration and survey of some classes of vessels used on inland waters and standards of competency for those commanding them and their crews.

Zimbabwe Centre for High Performance Computing

SI 168/2019 [link] gazetted on 9th August is the Manpower Planning and Development (Zimbabwe Centre for High Performance Computing) Regulations, 2019.  The regulations provide for the establishment of a new body corporate – a new parastatal – in the form of a Government institute to be known as the Zimbabwe Centre for High Performance Computing [ZCHPC].   The Centre will be the custodian of the national supercomputer and its system and provide supercomputing services not Government and to individuals and organisations requiring such services.  As the ZCHPC has been in existence at the University of Zimbabwe since 2015, the SI appears to something of an afterthought.

Does all this really fall within the scope of the Manpower Planning and Development Act as a whole, let alone the provisions of the Act cited as enabling the regulations?  These are questions for the Parliamentary Legal Committee.  Our initial reaction is that this SI may be ultra vires and not fit for purpose.

Gazette of 20th September 2019

Zambezi River Authority – Employees’ Conditions of Service amended

SI 201/2019 [link] gazettes comprehensive changes to the terms and conditions of service of employees of the Zambezi River Authority [ZRA], as approved by the Governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Note: The ZRA is a corporation jointly and equally owned by the governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe. It is a governed by a four-person council consisting of the Ministers of Energy and Finance of each country. Its primary function is to operate and maintain the Kariba Dam on the Zambezi River.  Its headquarters are in Lusaka.

Wages and allowances for Chemicals, Fertilisers, Battery and Plastics Manufacturing Industry

SI 202/2019 [link] sets the 2019 wages and allowances for the various sectors of the industry.

Customs duty rebate for electrical manufacturers

SI 203/2019 [link] amends the principal regulations by adding more goods to the list qualifying for the rebate in addition to those already added following the Supplementary Budget in August [see below]..

Customs  and Excise Tariff Amendment

SI 204/2019 [link] reduces customs duty on certain goods [including to zero on lithium solar batteries] and states excise duty on specified liquor and tobacco items in ZWL.

Statutory Instruments 205/2019 onwards will be covered in Part 2

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

Post published in: Featured

Calling All Legal Ops Leaders: The 2019 LDO Survey Is Live

Calling All Legal Ops Leaders: The 2019 LDO Survey Is Live

LDO and Above the Law