Author: TSA Press

I’ve always said I’ll stay on this job as long as I can do it full steam. At my age — 86 — you have to take it year by year. I was okay this last term and I expect to be okay next term. And then after that, we’ll have to see.

— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in comments made about her health and any possible retirement plans she may have, during Duke Law’s “Conversation with Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” an event associated with the school’s D.C. Summer Institute on Law and Policy, which is now in its seventh year.

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The landscape of legal education is rapidly changing, and admissions exams aren’t what they used to be. Not only has the LSAT, the traditional law school entrance exam, moved to an entirely digital format, but more and more law schools are making the decision to accept another standardized test, the GRE, in lieu of the LSAT.

You can now count Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law among the ever-growing list of law schools getting on board with the trend and accepting the GRE for admissions. In addition to being lower-cost and offered much more frequently than the LSAT, the move has been pitched by many in legal academia as drawing applicants with a diverse academic background. As noted by Dean Jennifer Collins:

“For nearly 100 years, SMU Dedman School of Law has always looked at the prospective student as a whole person,” said Jennifer Collins, Dean of SMU Dedman School of Law. “Adding the GRE as a standardized test option will help us identify an even broader pool of applicants who will flourish in law school and who will make meaningful contributions to our profession and our community.”

For those keeping track at home, the law schools that are currently accepting the GRE are: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, St. John’s, Brooklyn, Northwestern, Arizona, Georgetown, Hawaii, Washington University in St. Louis, Wake Forest, Cardozo School of Law, Texas A&M, BYU, John Marshall Law School, Florida State, Pace, UCLA, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Penn, USC, Cornell, Buffalo, NYU, Florida International University College of Law, and Penn State Law at University Park. (University of Chicago and University of Georgia both allow candidates in dual degree programs to skip the LSAT.) And we are likely to only see this trend continue. According to a survey by Kaplan Test Prep, a full 25 percent of law schools have plans to accept the GRE.

Even though the GRE is gaining popularity in law school admissions, don’t expect an official statement from the American Bar Association — the body responsible for law school accreditation anytime soon. The accreditation body’s lack of an official response has functionally ceded the question to law schools. ABA accreditation Standard 503 currently mandates that law schools require admissions testing, and that the test used be “valid and reliable,” but what that means for the GRE isn’t clear. (Though a number of law schools and ETS, the maker of the GRE, have done their own validity testing.) The ABA considered a resolution that would elimination the testing requirement in admission, however, in August of last year, the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar officially withdrew that resolution before the ABA House of Delegates. Since then, it’s been radio silence from the ABA.

---

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).

Make no mistake, a mouthy defendant determined to keep objecting throughout a hearing can be a headache for everyone else involved. A judge trying to manage the orderly flow of justice has to find a way to balance the constitutional rights of an agitated defendant fighting for their future with the need for decorum. There are many tools in a judge’s arsenal to keep things running smoothly. Robbing the defendant of basic human dignity is… not the best one.

This story comes from Louisiana, where defendant Michael Duhon kept making objections during his own sentencing:

According to court minutes, Duhon objected when the judge asked him to stop submitting motions on his own behalf in the case instead of through his attorney. He objected again when evidence was submitted. He attempted to offer arguments against the inclusion of the evidence and was told to speak through his attorney.

Without passing judgment on the quality of the evidentiary arguments he was trying to make, at least he’s trying to make a point. This isn’t a guy just yelling “LIAR!” at witnesses and creating a scene — he’s actually trying to press his case, however bad he may be at it.

Judge Marilyn Castle could have responded to these outbursts any number of responsible, judicious ways, but instead decided to have her bailiff do this:

After requesting at least twice for Duhon to remain quiet, Castle ordered the bailiff to tape Duhon’s mouth shut during witness testimony.

Thankfully, Duhon’s public defender was there to object and suggest that, you know, Duhon be removed from the courtroom for his lack of decorum instead of treated like an extra at Abu Ghraib.

Rather than own up to her own judicial temperament failures, Judge Castle has since launched an effort to punish literally anyone else who might have caught her debasing her office:

Public defender Michael Gregory, who does not represent Duhon but was present in court at the time of the incident, is facing potential contempt charges for filming the encounter on his cell phone, according to court minutes.

…

Minutes also show “the Court further ordered that all filming dissemination from this court proceeding must be retrieved/destroyed….”

A stellar example to set for criminal defendants — if you commit a transgression, the most important thing is to eliminate all the evidence and drop the hammer on the witnesses. Castle fined Gregory $100 and banned him from using a cellphone in the courthouse for six months. After all, he can’t be trusted to not catch her in some other embarrassing situation.

As you might imagine, Gregory is going to appeal.

Lafayette judge orders man’s mouth duct-taped during sentencing hearing [Acadiana Advocate]
Lawyer Gets in Trouble Over Duct-Tape Incident [Newser]

The world keeps getting more and more interconnected, and law firms that are able to smoothly navigate international waters across dozens of practice areas are extremely valuable. Cross-border legal work is complex, and the firms that do it well deserve recognition as the global powerhouses that they are.

Law360 (sub. req.) has announced the latest edition of their list of the top 20 global law firms. Their methodology, described below, attempts to find the firms that are truly able to compete in the international legal market:

Firms are ranked based on five factors: the percentage of the firm’s attorneys located outside its home country; the number of offices outside the firm’s home country; the number of countries where the firm has at least one office; the practice area breadth of the firm’s cross-border and international work; and the size and complexity of the firm’s cross-border and international work.

Here are the top 5 firms of the 2019 Global 20:

1. Baker McKenzie
1. White & Case
3. Allen & Overy
4. Norton Rose Fulbright
5. DLA Piper

Click here to see the next 15 firms on the list.

White & Case once again snags the top spot on the list, but this time shares its glory with Baker McKenzie, a firm that was ranked at #12 on last year’s Global 20. That’s quite the leap in just one year’s time, so way to go!

Money makes the world go round, and these firms are definitely keeping it spinning. Digging further into the data reveals that these 20 firms combined have offices in 276 cities in more than 100 countries on six continents and every single one has an office in New York, London, Paris, Hong Kong, and Beijing.

Congratulations to all the firms on the list!

Law360 Reveals The Global 20 Firms Of 2019 [Law360 (sub. req.)]

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Coming out of law school, most people’s credentials are the same:  “I went to X Law School.  My grades were Y.”  You get hired (or not) based on those credentials.  Employers are hiring you for what you may become, not what you are.

After five years, things have changed.  Your law school grades probably don’t matter quite as much.  But your experience becomes far more important:  “I’m a litigator.”  “I’m an employment litigator.”  “I’m a tax adviser.”  “I give SEC advice.”  “I advise investment funds.”   You’re no longer a blank slate — a young lawyer who can be molded into any form. 

As time passes, your grades almost certainly matter less and experience molds you further still.  After 10 or 20 years of repeatedly doing the same thing, you can no longer plausibly claim to be something other than what you are. 

Perhaps you’re now a specialist.

Or perhaps not.  After 10 or 20 years of doing a variety of different things, you can no longer claim to be a specialist in some particular field.  You’ve become a generalist, and the only people who will retain (or employ) you are those seeking out generalist advice.  You no longer run with the specialists.

The same truth holds true for everyone: You enter the workforce with your credentials; you exit with your experience.

Think about this as you make choices.

I’ve heard a person say (quite reasonably), “Thanks for thinking of me for an in-house job as an employment lawyer.  But I’m now working at a firm, and I have my own client base.  If I work for your corporation, I’ll have to give up my client base.  And then, if your corporation fires me, I’ll have nowhere to go.  I won’t run that risk.”

That’s an entirely reasonable person.

But I’ve also heard people say (quite reasonably), “Why would we hire an employment lawyer who’s worked only at a law firm for 20 years when there are other candidates who have in-house experience?  We need someone who understands how corporate structures work and who knows the type of advice that in-house lawyers are regularly called upon to give.  We don’t want someone from a firm; we want someone with in-house experience.”

You have to pick your poison; you can’t be both candidates.

Coming out of law school, many students talk about “keeping their options open.”  But options exist only to be exercised.  Inertia or indecision can cause someone to take the path of least resistance, or the path of maximum prestige, or the path of greatest riches.  But no matter how you select it, you’ve chosen a path, and that route will dictate where you go.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

* The House Judiciary Committee has (finally) opened an impeachment investigation against President Trump, and has asked a federal judge to supply subpoenaed grand jury information related to Robert Mueller’s probe. [Washington Post]

* “I was OK this last term. I expect to be OK next term. And after that we’ll just have to see.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has no immediate plans for retirement, saying that she’ll continue to take things “year by year” and “stay on this job as long as [she] can do it full steam.” [CNN]

* In case you missed it, here’s what SCOTUS justices have done on their summer vacation thus far: they’re allowing the Trump administration to use $2.5 billion of funds that were previously allocated to the Defense Department to start construction on the border wall. [New York Times]

* Just as LeClairRyan finds itself gasping its presumptive last breaths, the firm finds itself on the wrong end of a gender pay discrimination case. [Big Law Business]

* A federal judge has dismissed Nick Sandmann’s $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post. This probably means that Sandmann’s similar suits against CNN and NBC will be dismissed soon as well. [USA Today]

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill

Adverse Report by Parliamentary Legal Committee

On the 24th July the Deputy Speaker of Parliament announced that the Parliamentary Legal Committee had issued an adverse report on the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill, meaning that the Committee had found some provisions of the Bill to be unconstitutional.  The report can be seen on the Veritas website [link] as can the Bill itself [link].

To understand the report one needs to refer to the Bill and the Constitution, which readers may not have readily available;  so in this bulletin we shall summarise and clarify the report’s findings.  Before doing so however we should point out that the Bill is virtually identical to the Public Order and Security Act, so the Committee’s criticisms of the Bill apply equally to the Act, which is currently relied on by the security services to control demonstrations and protests.

Analysis of the PLC Report

The Committee found that no fewer than 11 clauses of the Bill were unconstitutional.  We shall deal with each of them in turn.

Clause 3 (Regulating authorities)

This clause declares that the senior police officer of every police district is the “regulating authority” for that district  ‒ i.e. the official who will fix conditions under which public gatherings (i.e. meetings, demonstrations and processions) can be held within the district.

The Committee considered the clause “gives regulating authorities the power to limit the freedom of assembly and association” in violation of section 58 of the Constitution.  With respect to the Committee, this criticism should not be directed at clause 3, which does no more than appoint regulating authorities, but rather at those clauses which give regulating authorities excessive powers ‒ and, as we shall see, the Committee does attack those clauses later in the report.

Clause 4 (Prohibition of carrying of weapons in public)

This clause gives regulating authorities power to prohibit for up to three months the carrying of weapons, and items capable of being used as weapons, in public places if the regulating authorities think they are likely to cause public disorder.  Prohibition orders under the clause will be published in newspapers or posted up on public buildings or broadcast by radio.  Anyone aggrieved by an order will have a right to appeal against it to the Minister of Home Affairs, and anyone contravening an order will be liable to imprisonment for up to six months.

The Committee pointed out that people in rural areas might not be able to learn about prohibition orders, not having access to newspapers or public buildings;  it also considered that the right of appeal to the Minister, rather than to a court, went against the tenets of justice and violated section 69(3) of the Constitution which guarantees right of access to the courts for the resolution of disputes.

The Committee’s view is right.  There seems no justification for having the Minister decide appeals:  a court will be more likely to give a fair and impartial decision than the Minister.  A further point about the clause, which the Committee did not mention, is that it makes it a crime for a person to carry weapons in breach of an order, no matter what reason or excuse the person may have for carrying them and regardless of whether the person is brandishing them or, for example, carrying a just-purchased kitchen knife in a packet.  The clause is far too widely phrased.

Clauses 5 to 8 (gatherings in public places)

These clauses require organisers of public gatherings to notify regulating authorities before the gatherings are held (five days’ notice in the case of public meetings, seven days in the case of demonstrations and processions).  Organisers will also be obliged to negotiate with regulating authorities about arrangements for the gatherings and to comply with directives the regulating authorities may give them.  If a regulating authority believes that a gathering will cause serious disruption, injuries or property damage the authority will be able to prohibit the gathering.  An organiser who fails to give the requisite notice of a gathering will be guilty of a crime and liable to a year’s imprisonment.

In the Committee’s view these clauses will unduly limit freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by section 58 of the Constitution and will debar citizens from holding spontaneous gatherings.  The Committee also objected to clause 7 making it a crime, punishable by imprisonment, not to give notice of a gathering.  The intention of this provision, the Committee said, was clearly to curtail freedom of expression and conscience.  A fine would serve the required purpose.

In support of its views the Committee referred to a decision of our Constitutional Court, DARE & Others v Saunyama & Others [link].  The Committee might have gone further if it had referred to a South African constitutional court judgment [link] which emphasised how important it is for citizens to have the right to demonstrate spontaneously and declared that failure to give notice of a demonstration could not be made a crime, no matter what penalty was prescribed.

Clause 10 (Gatherings in vicinity of Parliament)

This clause will prohibit public gatherings in the vicinity of Parliament, courts or places declared to be protected places under the Protected Places and Areas Act.

The Committee pointed out that Parliament is a public institution open to members of the public and that the clause would unreasonably limit their right to petition Parliament which is guaranteed by section 149 of the Constitution.  The Committee is undoubtedly correct.  Even though the clause will allow demonstrations near Parliament if the Speaker gives written permission for them, the constitutional right to petition Parliament cannot be made dependent on permission from the Speaker or a police officer.

Clause 12 (Civil liability of organisers of gatherings)

Under this clause organisers of gatherings who fail to notify regulating authorities of their gatherings or to follow directives issued by regulating authorities will be liable to compensate persons who suffer injury or loss from public violence or breaches of the peace caused by or arising out of or occurring at” the gatherings.

The Committee said this clause was too broad and an invasion of freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by section 58 of the Constitution.  Again the Committee was quite right:  organisers will be liable regardless of whether they incite or permit the violence or disturbance which causes injury or loss, and regardless of any measures they may have taken to prevent it.

Clause 14 (Carrying of identity documents)

This clause requires every adult to carry an identity document whenever he or she is in a public place.  The Committee considered the clause was “a remnant from the oppressive colonial laws” and should not be in the Bill since it contravened section 66(2)(a) of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of movement.

Again the Committee is perfectly right:  indeed more than 20 years ago our Supreme Court declared a similar provision in the old Law and Order (Maintenance) Act ‒ an oppressive colonial law ‒ to be unconstitutional for precisely the same reason

Clause 21 (Special jurisdiction of magistrates)

This clause will give magistrates special powers to sentence people convicted of crimes under the Bill “on summary trial”.  The Committee considered that summary trials went against the principles of natural justice and violated section 69 of the Constitution, which provides for fair trials.

Here, with respect, the Committee seems to have misunderstood the meaning of “summary trial”.  In the context of magistrates courts it is a technical term and means a trial which takes place without there having been a previous hearing of the evidence before a magistrate other than the trial magistrate.  It does not mean a kangaroo trial or a rushed trial such as those that were conducted in the aftermath of the violent demonstrations in January this year.  Virtually all trials in magistrates courts are “summary trials”.   [Comment: The clause would make perfect sense if the references to summary trials were omitted;  perhaps they should be omitted to avoid misconstruction.]

Despite the misunderstanding, the Committee was right to draw attention to clause 21 because the sentencing powers it gives magistrates are excessive ‒ eye-wateringly so.  A magistrate other than the most junior will be able to impose sentences of up to ten years’ imprisonment and regional magistrates up to twenty years.  These are sentences that should be imposed only by judges of the High Court and only in the most serious of cases.

Conclusion

The PLC is to be commended for a report which points out the main respects in which the Bill is in conflict with the Constitution.  It is gratifying for Veritas, because many of the Committee’s objections to the Bill are the same as those we pointed out in our Bill Watch 24/2019 of 2nd May 2019 [link].

It is to be hoped that the Government will pay proper attention to the report and revise the Bill to take account of the Committee’s valid objections.  If the Bill is not revised extensively it will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the right to demonstrate, all vital to a democratic society and all guaranteed by the Constitution.  Also, if the Bill is not revised it will prompt a great number of court cases challenging its constitutionality.

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

Post published in: Featured

Public Consultations on a Petition to Parliament on

Pension and Other Welfare Benefits for War Veterans:

29th July to 2nd August

The Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs and Security Services will be holding public consultations in response to a petition by Mr B. Kundhlandle on the Pension Benefits and General Welfare of War Veterans from 29th July to 2nd August 1019. The Committee will split into two teams and will cover all the provinces as shown in the following tables:

SOUTHERN TEAM

Date	Place	Venue	Time
Monday 29 July	Gwanda	Juwanda Community Hall	9.30 am to 11.30 am
	Bulawayo	Luveve Hall	2.30 pm to 4.30 pm
Tuesday 30 July	Plumtree	TMB Hall	9.30 am to 11.30 am
	Bulawayo	Stanley Hall	2.30 pm to 4.30 pm
Wednesday 31 July	Tsholotsho	Roman Catholic Hall	9.30 am to 11.30 am
	Lupane	Lupane Council Hall	2.00 pm to 4 .00 pm
Thursday 1 August	Zvishavane	Chiedza Hall	9.30 am to 11.30 am
	Kwekwe	Kwekwe Theatre Hall	2.30 pm to 4.30 pm
Friday 2 August	Chegutu	Chegutu Community Hall	10.00 am to 12 noon
	Karoi	Chikangwe Hall	2.00 pm to 4 pm

NORTHERN TEAM

Date	Place	Venue	Time
Monday 29 July	Chiredzi	Chitsanga Hall	9.30 am to 11.30 am
	Masvingo	Masvingo Civic Centre Hall	2.30 pm to 4.30 pm
Tuesday 30 July	Chipinge	Chipinge, Gaza Hall	10.30 am to 12.30 pm
	Mutare	Queens Hall	3.30 pm to 5.30 pm
Wednesday 31 July	Marondera	Mbuyanehanda Hall	9.30 am to 11.30 am
	Murehwa	Zihute Hall	2.00 pm to 4 .00 pm
Thursday 1 August	Mt Darwin	Mt Darwin Sports Club	9.30 am to 11.30 am
	Bindura	Halla Hall	2.00 pm to 4 .00 pm
Friday 2 August	Harare	Parliament Senate Chamber	9.00 am to 11.00 am
	Harare	Mai Musodzi Hall, Mbare	2.00 pm to 4.00 pm

All those who will be putting on military uniforms, signs of ranks, flags or badges and political party regalia will not have access to the public hearing.

The public, interested groups and organizations are invited to attend these consultations. Written submissions and correspondences are welcome and should be addressed to:

The Clerk of Parliament

Attention: Portfolio Committee on Youth, Sports, Arts and Recreation

P.O. Box CY 298

Causeway

Harare

Submissions can also be made by email through email address [email protected]

For any further information or clarifications please call on the numbers indicated below and speak to the officers indicated:

Telephone: (0242) 700181-8, 252936-50

Cleopas Gadaga (Committee Clerk)  0785 016 966

Ellen Huwa (Public Relations Officer)  0772 359 534

Cecilia Njovana (Public Relations Officer)  0779 674 426

Fax: (0242) 252935

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

Post published in: Featured

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/48397089922/sizes/m/

Newsday tells the story: ‘A rudimentary bread oven that was officially opened by two ministers in Makonde amid pomp and fanfare has been closed barely 24 hours after it became operational.’

A local villager said they were not aware the project until the ministers arrived to commission the oven, which uses firewood and could produce 500 loaves a day.

‘The moment the ministers went away everything came to a halt’, he said. Not surprising as the 50 kgs of flour delivered on the day had been exhausted.

The usual Herald report hailing a pioneering government project to relieve rural poverty failed to materialize, probably because  one of  the ministers, Environment, Tourism and Hospitality Minister Priscah Mupfumira, was arrested on her return to Harare under new powers given to the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission over an alleged $95 million corruption scandal.

Mupfumira was previously Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Minister in charge of the national social security authority, which looks after the tempting billion-dollar state pension fund and was the subject of a critical audit report still to be published by the government.

MDC leader Nelson Chamisa says corruption has become ‘a national anthem’ and life has become unbearable with ‘no fuel, no power, no money, no passports, no jobs and no food’.

He called for seven days of national prayer, fasting and intercession by Zimbabweans inside and outside the country beginning on Monday, ahead of what he said would be decisive steps by the party to rescue the country.

Other points

• Activists from the Vigil and our sister organization Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe (ROHR) walked 15 miles from Redbridge in Essex to the Zimbabwe Embassy today to raise funds for our work in Zimbabwe. Thanks to our valiant walkers: Shylette Chipangura, Daizy Fabian, Beaulah Gore, Deborah Harry, Simbarashe Jingo, Josephine Jombe, Tatenda Mandiki, Charles Mararirakwenda, Patricia Masamba, Cephas Maswoswa, Joyce Mbairatsunga, Bianca Mpawaenda, Margaret Munenge, Esther Munyira, Fungisai Mupandira, Molly Ngavaimbe, Hazvinei Saili, Ephraim Tapa and BensonTsikwa. A special thank you to Esther who organised the event and to Mary Muteyerwa who prepared snacks for the walkers and to Jonathan Kariwo who took the exhausted walkers to a well-deserved meal at Nandos after the Vigil
• The charity ZANE (Zimbabwe a National Emergency) is organising a much longer fundraising walk from Canterbury to Oxford from 28^th August to 11^th September.  Money raised will help the poor and elderly left destitute by the crisis in Zimbabwe. If you would like to take part or contribute in some way see their website: www.zane.uk.com.
• Thanks to those who helped set up the front table today and put up the banners: Marvellous Chinguwa, Isabell Gwatidzo, Jane Kaphuwa, Jonathan Kariwo, Philip Maponga, Gloria Mudzimu, Mary Muteyerwa, Tsitsi Nyirongo and Ephraim Tapa. Thanks to Isabell and Tsitsi for looking after the front table, to Gloria and Marvellous for handing out flyers, to Mary and Hazvinei for drumming and to Patricia, Tatenda, Hazvinei, Daizy, Isabell and Jonathan for photos.
• For latest Vigil pictures check: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zimb88abwevigil/. Please note: Vigil photos can only be downloaded from our Flickr website.

FOR THE RECORD: 27 signed the register.

EVENTS AND NOTICES:

• ROHR general members’ meeting. Saturday 10^th August from 11.30 am. Venue: Royal Festival Hall, South Bank Centre, Belvedere Road SE1 8XX. Contact: Ephraim Tapa 07940793090, Patricia Masamba 07708116625.
• ROHR Beach Barbecue. Sunday 25^th August. Venue: Frinton-on-Sea, Essex CO13 9DN. Tickets: adults £20, Kids £10. Contact: Patricia Masamba 07708116625, Heather Makawa 07716391800, Esther Munyira 07492058109 and Daizy Fabian 07708653640.
• The Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe (ROHR) is the Vigil’s partner organization based in Zimbabwe. ROHR grew out of the need for the Vigil to have an organization on the ground in Zimbabwe which reflected the Vigil’s mission statement in a practical way. ROHR in the UK actively fundraises through membership subscriptions, events, sales etc to support the activities of ROHR in Zimbabwe. Please note that the official website of ROHR Zimbabwe is http://www.rohrzimbabwe.org/. Any other website claiming to be the official website of ROHR in no way represents us.
• The Vigil’s book ‘Zimbabwe Emergency’ is based on our weekly diaries. It records how events in Zimbabwe have unfolded as seen by the diaspora in the UK. It chronicles the economic disintegration, violence, growing oppression and political manoeuvring – and the tragic human cost involved. It is available at the Vigil. All proceeds go to the Vigil and our sister organisation the Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe’s work in Zimbabwe. The book is also available from Amazon.

• Facebook pages:

  Vigil: https://www.facebook.com/zimbabwevigil
  ROHR: https://www.facebook.com/Restoration-of-Human-Rights-ROHR-Zimbabwe-International-370825706588551/
  ZAF: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zimbabwe-Action-Forum-ZAF/490257051027515

Post published in: Featured