Doctors’ Strike Leaves Some Zimbabweans ‘Gathering Here in Pain’ – The Zimbabwean

The Harare resident said she had been referred to Parirenyatwa General Hospital, the capital’s largest medical center, “but there is no help. We are just gathering here in pain, in shame and in agony.”

An untold number of Zimbabweans have been turned away from public medical facilities since Sept. 3, when just more than 500 junior doctors, paid less than $200 a month, went on strike, demanding better wages as well as equipment and supplies for treating patients.

Hundreds of senior doctors with the same complaints joined the strike Thursday, further diminishing treatment options in the southern African country of 14 million.

Government offer rejected

On Friday, labor groups representing the doctors rejected the government’s offer of a 60% salary increase. It would have been paid in Zimbabwe’s devalued currency and not the U.S. dollars that the doctors sought.

“They’re asking the government to match their salaries with what they were earning” before the country’s economic collapse, explained Dr. Fortune Nyamande, spokesman for the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights. His group does not represent labor nor is it involved in negotiations, but Nyamande was apprised of Friday’s developments.

The government has threatened to withhold the pay of striking doctors. Dr. Paulinus Sikosana, chairman of its Health Services Board, said it won’t pay someone who won’t work.

The World Health Organization’s representative to Zimbabwe, Dr. Alex Gasasira, encouraged negotiations between the striking doctors and the government.

“We hear that many patients are being turned away, some of them with very serious conditions,” Gasasira said in a phone interview. “So we are concerned that the most vulnerable people … would not be able to access the services that they would require.”

An ailing health system

The strike has paralyzed the public health system.

“We know that something terrible is happening. We are hearing of pregnant women dying, victims of road traffic accidents dying,” Nyamande said, adding that he doubts the accuracy of government statistics on health and mortality.

Zimbabweans such as Mbofana gauge the health system based on personal experience.

Her back hurts and her prospects are poor. Turned away from public health care, “I was advised to go and seek treatment from private clinics or surgeons,” Mbofana said. “But how do I raise the money?”

Patients admitted into public hospitals before the strike have no guarantee of quality care, either, given gaps in staffing and shortages of medical equipment, such as diagnostic tools, surgical gloves and pain medicine.

A woman who identified herself only as Kukuwe said her sister’s health is worsening while at Parirenyatwa.

“No doctors are coming to see patients,” Kukuwe said. “The patients are stranded and are not receiving help because there are no doctors to write prescriptions.”

Doctor in care

Senior doctors last month had joined their junior counterparts in demonstrating for the release of Peter Magombeyi, who had led the strike as acting president of the Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association. He allegedly had been abducted from his home Sept. 14, resurfacing several days later outside of Harare, dazed and in pain. He initially told VOA in a phone interview that he remembered “being electrocuted at some point.”

The group Human Rights Watch says it has confirmed at least 50 abductions of activists and government critics so far this year.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s administration and Zimbabwe police have denied any involvement in Magombeyi’s disappearance.

Zimbabwe police had blocked Magombeyi from leaving a Harare private hospital but ultimately heeded a high court’s order to allow the doctor to seek care in South Africa. He reportedly is being treated at an undisclosed medical facility there.

Rutendo Mawere reported for VOA’s English to Africa Service from Harare. Gibbs Dube of VOA’s Zimbabwe Service reported from Washington.

The Water Crisis Fact Sheet No. 2, 2019
Busting the myth of an ‘upper middle income’ Utopia

Post published in: Featured

There are days when ‘my husband and I don’t eat at all’ – The Zimbabwean

In eastern Zimbabwe’s parched Buhera district, Omega Kufakunesu’s family has been forced to scale down daily meals to just a portion of vegetables and sadza, a thick maize-meal porridge.

In the morning only the children get the porridge, and everyone skips lunch.

“During the day we have wild fruit collected by the children, and at night we have smaller portions of sadza with vegetables,” harvested from the communal village garden, said Kufakunesu, sitting outside her thatched round hut.

A palmful of shumha, a drought-resistant wild fruit, is all she will eat during the day until dinner time.

“We have reduced our food portions so that its enough for everyone,” she said.

But there are days when “my husband and I don’t eat at all” to make sure the children have some food, she said.

Zimbabwe is experiencing one of the worst droughts in history, blamed on the effects of the El Nino weather cycle.

In addition, the former regional breadbasket is in the throes of its worst economic crisis in a decade with inflation estimated to be over 900 percent.

‘More hungry people than ever’

Because of the combined effect of drought and an ailing economy, more than five million rural Zimbabweans, nearly a third of the population, are going to face food shortages before the next harvest in 2020.

A disturbing feature of this year’s food shortages is the increase in the number urban poor who are vulnerable.

The government estimates that up to 2.2 million people in towns and cities are struggling to feed themselves.

WFP country representative Eddie Rowe said there are “more hungry people than ever before in Zimbabwe”.

In August, the United Nations extended its appeal for aid – from $234m February to $331m to feed the combined total of over seven million Zimbabweans, roughly half the country’s population.

Buhera is home to around 300 000 people and experiences dry spells even during good rainy seasons. It is one of the areas hardest hit by the drought.

To make matters worse, it was in the path of Cyclone Idai which devastated Mozambique and parts of eastern Zimbabwe earlier this year.

‘Bartering wire mesh for food’

According to the UN, most of Zimbabwe’s 60 districts will have exhausted their staple maize stocks by October.

The Kufakunesu family and neighbouring villagers have been lucky to have boreholes to draw water for drinking, washing and watering the garden – but the water is drying up due to the heat and scanty rain.

The UN’s World Food Programme has been handing out food parcels – cooking oil and porridge for children under five – and US$8 in cash per month for every family member. But the payouts are only restricted to the so-called lean months.

At Joni, a neighbouring village, 49-year-old Fungai Mugombe, one of three wives and a mother of seven, used the money set up a simple wire mesh making project.

“People buy the mesh wire for fencing, and we make a small profit. I sometimes exchange the fences with food,” Mugombe said outside a cluster of huts where a red bougainvillea adds colour to a bleak dusty landscape.

Freeman Mavhiza, the district administrator, said the government was providing villagers with irrigation facilities and seed for drought resistant crops such as millet and sorghum.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa has said the government had budgeted $120m for the production of “strategic crops, such as maize, soya beans and cotton”.

Bad Governance Creates Oligarchies, Monopolies, Lethal Distortions etc

Post published in: Business

Results Define Us, But Stay Grounded

Take a moment to think about your most memorable victory, and be honest with yourself. Were the facts on your side? How about the law? Did you actually overcome the odds, or was the outcome predetermined?

One of my colleagues and I were recently regaling war stories over lunch. The topic quickly turned to the most exciting, entertaining, and memorable cases each of us has litigated. As the conversation progressed and tales of victory were exchanged, I found myself noticing how closely we as lawyers identify with our work. After an impressive display of one-upsmanship, the discussion took a dark turn and we began to discuss our worst failures.

Without taking any time to think about it, I found myself instantly remembering my worst defeat. I will not bore you with the minutia of the facts, or the ruling, suffice it to say that despite vigorous litigation, the judge ruled completely against me. Notice how I phrase that: the judge ruled against “ME” — not my client, not my firm, ME.

In retrospect, that is standard protocol for discussing the results of our work. When we win a case, it is our victory, we earned it. When we lose a case, it is our defeat, we have failed. Each decision, each judge’s order is an assessment of our efficacy — infinitely more important than any other source of feedback we have ever received. Each of us, especially litigators, credit our quick wit, our charm, our inventive arguments, our handwork and preparation, or our reputation for each case we win.

The personal identification with our work is part self-preservation and part ego. Each of us wants to believe that we are the unique element that wins the case. Past that, reconciling the amount of time we put in, the tremendous talent we exhibit with each argument we set forth, the eloquence of each phrase we utter at a hearing, and the intellect that drives our litigation strategies with a world that does not care is inapposite. Our work must matter or else there is no point.

A senior attorney once told me, if the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts and the law are against you, yell louder than the other guy. While I am uncertain that this is a sound litigation strategy, the point is clear — a good lawyer finds a way to make his client right.

While I respectfully take any advice I am given, a reality check is in order. There is no lawyer who wins every argument and dominates every case. The reason for that is simply that the facts of the case, not the attorney, often decide the ultimate outcome. Bearing in mind this reality can help keep us grounded and, in fact, helps us to counsel our clients.

With that said, when the facts are neutral, and the law is not clearly on any party’s side, that is when our advocacy can truly shine. Those are the stories worth sharing and the victories truly worth celebrating.


Andrew C. Bershtein is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello who represents clients in in all stages of litigation, arbitration, and mediation. He focuses practice on complex commercial litigation, contract disputes, and real estate law. You can reach Andrew at andrew.c.bershtein@balestrierefariello.com.

Media Wonders If Democrats Are Right To Do The Thing Literally Every Court In America Does

It’s running the risk of becoming cliché to suggest that the media will turn the investigation into the White House using foreign policy leverage to coax other nations into digging up scandal on Joe Biden into a discussion about “how exposed is Joe Biden.” Except, of course, it’s actually already happening because the news cycle is dumb.

Now the drive to churn content on this nascent impeachment inquiry is forcing reporters to look for angles and narratives where none should exist. Take this article in Roll Call, where we’re asked to consider if House Democrats are making a dangerous investigatory mistake in acting… like every litigant ever.

Despite some public pressure from the fringes, impeachment was mostly a dumb strategic move for Democrats over the past few years — the Russia inquiry involved claims that were thoroughly litigated in the court of public opinion and the public mostly didn’t care. In that world, going down this road only served to give Trump the acquittal and “exoneration” he desperately craved. The latest allegations, involving military aid and potentially toying with trade policy, are markedly different than pee tapes and porn stars. With the Democrats taking this endeavor seriously, they’ve also adopted the professional approach any legal inquiry would bring.

Trump’s folks have mostly tried to stymie the investigation and ignore or attempt to quash subpoenas. In the face of these delay tactics, Democrats have warned Trump’s people that withheld evidence will likely earn an adverse inference.

For the less politically inclined, this is exactly what happened to Tom Brady in Deflategate when he admitted that he’d destroyed the phone that allegedly held problematic texts.

And that’s the point: this is how this is handled all the time in the law. It is in no way controversial — if this evidence is being withheld for the seeming purpose of obstructing the probe, it can and should earn an adverse inference. If the administration doesn’t like that, then they should turn the stuff over. Full stop.

And yet….

But an adverse inference shortcut could also be a pitfall.

Just because House Democrats want to infer that missing evidence is bad for Trump doesn’t mean the public opinion will go along with it. And it probably won’t go over well with Republican senators who would vote on the articles of impeachment, either.

First of all, is this article trying with a straight face to argue that but for adverse inferences, Republican senators would vote to convict? Trump could, as he’s suggested, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and the GOP wouldn’t abandon him — at least not in the numbers necessary for any of this to matter.

But more importantly, maybe don’t call the evidentiary concept of an “adverse inference” a “shortcut” or suggest it runs contrary to “fair and legitimate investigation.” Not only is it plainly wrong, but it undermines the way courts in this country operate every day. This doctrine exists because it’s sound and fair and the only way to guarantee litigants don’t just refuse to produce anything at all. The people trying to undermine and obstruct are the people actually jeopardizing the legitimacy of any investigation.

Ultimately, the impeachment trial itself is a waste of everyone’s time, but a long, thorough investigation isn’t. That will matter for a long time to come. If the House has to style it as an impeachment inquiry to get there because Trump’s lawyers complain that subpoenas lack a “legislative purpose,” so be it. But ensuring the investigation is professional and legally sound is what truly matters.

In other words, this is about process not outcome, so let’s spare everyone all this fretting about the likelihood of Trump’s removal and just let lawyers do their jobs.

House Democrats enlist risky legal move in impeachment probe [Roll Call]

Earlier: Impeachophilia: The Democrats’ Futile And Self-Destructive Attraction To Impeachment


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Supreme Court Justices Used To Pass Notes Like Teenagers During Oral Arguments

(Image via Getty)

Note ‘blond’ in second row, center. She is here almost daily — at least since you came!

— Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, in a note passed to Justice Harry Blackmun during an oral argument at the Supreme Court that took place in November 1971. Justices used to pass handwritten notes to each other during the arguments taking place at the high court, which Timothy Johnson, a political-science professor at the University of Minnesota who has copied more than two decades’ worth former justices’ papers, including bench notes like these, says provide “an interesting insight into what they were thinking about as the attorneys were arguing.”


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Area Senior Arrested For Keeping It Old School With His Ponzi Scheme

James T. Booth is a man who [allegedly] still respects the classic techniques of the white-collar criminals he knew in his youth.

Addicted To Legal Trivia? We’ve Got The Cure

Above the Law publishes 20 or more articles a day, and many of our readers get highlights from Above the Law in their inboxes every, single day.

But what if you just can’t get enough of our trivia questions? From Biglaw to law school to government to salary news, we’ve got legal trivia questions for just about everyone. So that’s why we’re rolling out another newsletter that’s dedicated entirely to trivia.

What are you waiting for? Just sign up below to receive the latest and greatest trivia questions du jour from the world of law.


Staci ZaretskyStaci 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.

Elizabeth Warren Savagely Dominates Jacob Wohl, Finishing Him Off For Now

If this is how she handles a hedge fund wunderkind, imagine what she’s going to do to Larry Fink.