ZCTU Critique Of The 2019 Mid-Term Fiscal Policy Review And Supplementary Budget – The Zimbabwean

The mid-term fiscal policy review and supplementary budget statement was unveiled by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development on 1 August. The country is facing its worst crisis in 10 years with serious shortages of cash, water, power, fuel, wheat, maize. Economic growth slowed down from 4.7% in 2017 to an estimated 3.5% in 2018 against a target of 6.3% contained in the Transitional Stabilisation Programme (TSP).  The economy remains constrained by a lack of confidence (and trust); infrastructural deficits; political instability and institutional weaknesses among others. According to the World Bank Global Economic Prospects for June 2019, economic growth is projected to decline by -3.1% in 2019 making the country the worst performing economy in SSA. This places the country in an unenviable position negatively affecting the country’s investment prospects. TSP targets growth of 9.0% in 2019.

The country has also witnessed a worsening of the power outages with deleterious effects on the rest of the economy. Most businesses and organisations have been forced to rely on generators as a backup, resulting in an unsustainable increase in production costs threatening the viability of most business organisations. Businesses have also had to reduce operating hours negatively impacting on production/output. Some businesses have reportedly been forced to lay off part of their workforce as a way of reducing costs in order to remain viable. The austerity measures being implemented in the country have disproportionately affected the working class and the ordinary citizens with nominal incomes remaining largely stagnant while in real terms incomes have been grossly emasculated by a combination of rising inflation and high taxes.

The majority of the citizens don’t have access to social safety nets necessary to mitigate the deleterious impact of the fiscal austerity. Moreover, government social spending remains very small accounting for only 4% of total fiscal spending during the first quarter of the year. A critique of the current macroeconomic thrust of ‘austerity for prosperity’ is that it inordinately focuses on the attainment of macroeconomic stability as an end in itself at the expense of employment creation and poverty reduction. It has been observed in many countries that, obsession with eliminating fiscal and current account deficits, if achieved through cutbacks in public expenditure, especially on development and social services, can retard the process of growth and result in an increase in poverty.

Ensuring pro-poor and inclusive economic growth requires that the people and their needs come first, implying a human-rights strategy to development. Thus, the prioritisation of people and their basic needs (such as food security, healthcare, education, housing, transport, access to public utilities, decent jobs and infrastructure) should occupy pride of place in macroeconomic policy.

  1. Review of the Fiscal Framework and Outlook

 

Monthly revenue collections for the first half of the year amounted to ZWL$5.0 billion, against expenditures of ZWL$4.2 billion resulting a cumulative budget surplus of ZWL$803.6 million. This nominal surplus increase is indicative of the chronic high inflation which remains the biggest challenge to achieving macroeconomic stability in the country. Tax revenues at ZWL$4,880 million, account for 98% of total revenues. This is indicative of the high tax rates prevailing in the country which have negatively affected economic confidence and eroded competitiveness.

Total public expenditure during the first half was ZWL$4.2 billion against a target of ZWL$3.7 billion, representing over-expenditure of ZWL$532 million (15%). Worryingly, recurrent expenditures continue to account for the lion’s share of total fiscal expenditures at 79%, with only 21% spent on capital projects. Employment related expenditures account for about 52%. This is however expected to decline to 30% by year end. In terms of social service delivery, $62.5 million was disbursed towards education, health as well as other social protection programmes during the first quarter. This represents about 4 per cent of the total expenditures. This is reflective of the fiscal austerity for prosperity thrust of the government.

Total public expenditure for the year are now projected at ZWL$18.62 billion consisting of ZWL$5.56 billion ((30%) employment costs and ZWL$7.08 billion towards capital expenditures (38%). Government spending on social sectors remains grossly inadequate. Health accounts for 6.5% of total expenditures for the year, below the Abuja Declaration target of 15%. Primary and secondary education accounts for 8.0%, below the Dakar Declaration target of 20%. Lands and agriculture accounts for 24%. Energy accounts for 0.5%. Transport and infrastructure accounts for 6.2%. Defence accounts for 5.9%. The inadequate public financing of health has resulted in an overreliance on out-of-pocket and external financing which is highly unsustainable.

A current account surplus of US$196 million was registered during Q1 of 2019 compared to a deficit of US$491 million for the same period in 2018. Broad money supply (M3) growth averaged about 60% in May 2019 up from about 45% in April 2019. This is unsustainable in the light of declining economic output. Zimbabwe’s external and domestic debt stock stands at US$8 billion and ZWL$8.8 billion respectively. The huge external debt remains an albatross around the neck of government’s reengagement efforts. The sluggish pace of the implementation of key economic, institutional and political reforms has also bogged down the reengagement efforts.

While in nominal terms macroeconomic performance seems to have improved, in real terms (when one takes into account the effect of inflation) the gains are seriously eroded. This explains why government paradoxically had to issue a supplementary budget in the midst of the ‘supposed’ budget surplus. There is also an apparent disconnect between the nominal economic numbers on the one hand and the real situation on the ground on the other hand. For instance, in spite of the budget surplus, the social and humanitarian situation in the country remains quite dire with gross underfunding of key sectors such as public health and social protection.

  1. Review of Tax Measures

While the review of the employees’ tax free threshold from ZWL350 to ZWL$700 per month, this new figure is below the PDL of ZWL$924 for the month of April. The ZCTU has always maintained that the tax-free threshold should be linked to the PDL.  The TNF in 2001 resolved that the income tax free threshold be linked to the prevailing PDL. Taxing someone earning below the PDL is not only immoral but also regressive.

The immediate upward review of electricity tariffs and the increase in excise duty (ad valorem) on fuel to about 45% and 40% per litre of petrol and diesel respectively up from an average about 19% and 16% respectively will have an immediate knock on effect on the inflation. The 2% tax will also now be levied on the transfer of money between Mobile Money Transfer Agents and Recipients. Government is projecting month on month inflation to fall to below 15% by August 2019. This is however unlikely to be realised in light of the foregoing. Government service fees have also been increased by on average about 400% which is also expected to exert severe inflationary pressures which could result in the country sliding into hyperinflation.

The decision to discontinue the publication of annual inflation numbers until February 2020 is very unfortunate and smacks of dishonesty. This is because domestic prices already factored in to a very large extent the black market premium, a major driver of inflation since 2016/2017.

 

  1. Conclusion

The country has now been classified by the World Bank as a lower middle income country with a gross national income (GNI) per capita of US$1,790 in 2018 up from being classified as a low income country in 2017 with a GNI of US$910. This is however largely academic as it does not necessarily entail an improvement in the standards of living of the people on the ground. In fact, anecdotal evidence actually shows that the incidence of poverty is growing whilst income inequalities are also rising. The TSP is underpinned by the vision ‘Towards an Upper Middle Income Country’ by 2030. Importantly, attaining upper middle income status and ensuring pro-poor, inclusive and sustainable development are not the same. Indeed the country can attain upper middle income status by 2030 without necessarily reducing poverty and ensuring that economic growth is pro-poor, inclusive and sustainable. What is needed are macroeconomic policies that put citizens at the centre and forefront of development as both agents and beneficiaries. Such policies must necessarily prioritise the provision of socio-economic rights and not rely on the ‘trickle down’ from economic growth. In most cases economic growth is hardly sufficient to ensure any meaningful trickle down.

Public Consultations on the Freedom of Information Bill

Post published in: Business

Kraft Writes Off Another 1% Of Warren Buffett’s Cash Pile

Not literally, of course, but it’s a pleasing mathematical coincidence to all but Berkshire shareholders.

It’s The Violent Right Wing That Is Trying To Make ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ A Legal Defense

(Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Every diminished capacity criminal defense sounds crazy and dangerous when people first hear it. Congressman Daniel Sickles once gunned down Francis Scott Key’s son, Phillip Key, in broad daylight, across the street from the White House. He was acquitted claiming “temporary insanity,” a defense never successfully tried before, because Key and his wife were having an affair. More recently, PTSD as a criminal defense was once mocked, then there was hand-wringing about “abuse” of the classification, and it’s now a widely accepted diminished capacity defense.

Not all diminished capacity defenses gain such acceptance. Dan White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after he assassinated Harvey Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, despite arguing depression and offering his consumption of Twinkies as evidence of his depression. David Berkowitz, the “Son of Sam,” argued that a dog told him to kill the eight people in the summer of 1976. He later recanted his dog story, admitting that he was just trying to get an insanity plea going.

Ultimately, I think the new Trump Defense needs to end up in the latter dustbin. “MAGA bomber” Cesar Sayoc argued that his pipe-bombing terrorism was because of messages he received from watching Fox News and listening to Donald Trump. That mitigation was rejected, and Sayoc was sentenced to 20 years. Now, Curt Brockway, who was arrested and charged for assaulting a 13-year-old and breaking his skull because the kid didn’t remove his hat during the National Anthem, is arguing that Trump’s rhetoric contributed to the assault. From CBS:

The president’s “rhetoric” contributed to Curt Brockway’s disposition when he grabbed the boy by the throat and slammed him to the ground, fracturing his skull, at the Mineral County fairgrounds Saturday, attorney Lance Jasper told The Missoulian…

“His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished,” Jasper said. “He certainly didn’t understand it was a crime.”…

“Trump never necessarily says go hurt somebody, but the message is absolutely clear,” Jasper said. “I am certain of the fact that (Brockway) was doing what he believed he was told to do, essentially, by the president. … Everyone should learn to dial it down a little bit, from the president to Mineral County.”

This is a bad argument. To the extent that we think Trump’s rhetoric had something to do with Brockway’s attack (and I believe it does), then the right answer is to change the standards so we can charge Donald Trump with incitement (though there are problems with that). Supporting a violent president is not mitigation for carrying out violent acts.

BUT… Brockway’s attorney is not wrong. Almost every day, and certainly at every rally, Donald Trump exhorts his followers to violence. As Michael Cohen said in open Congressional testimony, the president “speaks in code.” You’re supposed to know what he wants done, without him directly telling you to do it. And there are more than enough weak-minded sycophants (like Cohen, actually) to carry out his wink-and-nod orders. I do believe that Brockway was doing what he believed he was told to do. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not a thing on the left. But on the right, you absolutely see violent individuals who believe that their violence is justified and welcomed by the President of the United States.

What makes a diminished capacity defense stick, however, is not whether the criminal believed he was justified. What makes it stick is whether the criminal could no longer distinguish “right from wrong.” Brockway knew that assaulting a 13-year-old was wrong. The MAGA bomber knew that BOMBING PEOPLE was wrong. The El Paso shooter knew that shooting people was wrong. They just also believed that their wrong actions were justified, based on everything that Donald Trump says. That’s why their crimes cannot be mitigated, despite the president’s rhetoric.

Trump hasn’t (yet) managed to change the legal or moral boundaries of acceptable behavior. He just makes illegal and immoral behaviors feel normal. That’s not a criminal defense. That’s a social cancer.

Attorney for Montana man who threw teen in national anthem attack says Trump rhetoric to blame [CBS News]


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Westcliff University ‘Delighted’ To Move Ahead with Acquiring Western State College Of Law

Westcliff University had been mum for months about its planned purchase of embattled Western State College of Law, but that changed this week.

Dr. Anthony Lee, President and CEO of Westcliff, said his for-profit school is “delighted to welcome Western State into our family.”

Lee’s comments via a press release came in the aftermath of a federal judge in Ohio signing off on one Orange County institution purchasing another. The court proceedings were a result of Western State’s parent university being in receivership, and Lee cast the law school as a victim of its parent’s financial problems.

“The law school had been successful with very experienced management, faculty, and staff,” Lee said. “We would not have become involved except for that. Westcliff is fully committed to helping Western State recover from its entanglement in the receivership and begin enrolling new students as soon as possible.”

Westcliff University was founded in 1993 and is accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC). Westcliff offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in business administration, information technology, and computer science.

Western State, an American Bar Association-accredited law school, was established in 1966 and is the oldest law school in Orange County.

Western State Dean Allen Easley has rarely engaged with the media about the events at the law school, but was quoted in the recent press release as expressing optimism about Westcliff’s planned purchase.

“We are incredibly grateful to Westcliff University for the commitment it has made to help secure a future for Western State College of Law and to secure a means for our students to continue their education at Western State through to earning their degrees,” Easley said. “Through enormous effort on the part of Westcliff, and the deeply rooted loyalty and commitment of our students, staff, faculty, and alumni, we have been given the opportunity to move forward.”

Westcliff University will buy the law school for $1. It will also secure the assets Argosy University, which was the parent university of Western State, used in the operation of the law school.

Lee said the purchase still requires approval of multiple regulators, which could take several months.

In the meantime, previously enrolled Western State students will be able to start their fall semester studies soon as part of a teach-out plan.

“When accreditor approvals have been secured the teach-out students will be absorbed into normal law school operations, and we will be able to enroll new students into Western State’s exceptional Juris Doctor program,” Lee said. “We are confident the transaction will close, but in the very unlikely situation it did not, we have contractually committed to teach currently enrolled students to their normal graduation dates.”


Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.

What Do You Wish You Knew About Biglaw BEFORE You Started?

Here at Above the Law we care a lot about increasing transparency at Biglaw firms — that’s why we spend so much time reporting on bonuses and salaries and benefits. And while reporting on the market standard and leaders will always be a part of our mission, we also want to hear about what it’s like to actually work in the halls of Biglaw.

So, we’re asking our readers to fill out a brief survey about what they wish they knew about their firm before they started working there. We don’t care about the firm’s PR line, but about what associates really feel about the firm. We’ll be integrating the results of the survey into a new transparency project that’ll be launched later this summer.


headshotKathryn 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).

Legal Tech: Capital Infusion At Software Company iCONECT Means…

(Image via iCONECT)

As a software company in the eDiscovery and information governance space for two decades, one might think there is little need to push the envelope. You can coast, right? Not true. Innovation waits for no one, and if all you do is sit around, then all you’ll be doing is sitting around.

iCONECT, the global software company and producer of the award-winning XERA eDiscovery platform, has announced that they are partnering with Newfield Capital Partners, a private investment firm, to provide strategic capital that will fund continued growth and innovation for the company. The terms of the arrangement are not public, but sources say it is a multimillion-dollar deal.

Ian Campbell, CEO of iCONECT, who’s been running the company for 20 years, gave me a few minutes of his time.

Asked what iCONECT is looking to accomplish with this infusion of capital, Ian told me that they are focused on innovative developments in the platform and on growing their market presence through sales and promotion. “We’ve known for a while that we have a better mousetrap,” Campbell says. “We’ve been focused on development for years. Now, we going to focus on expanded marketing and communications.”

iCONECT has been on the fringe of development in the GDPR space, and they have completed development of an auto-redaction tool that enables users to automatically identify and anonymize PII and PHI. They are also doing some cool things in video management for law enforcement, using the XERA platform to grant multi-party access to video evidence.

And they are planning a new software release that embeds some unique AI innovations into the platform.

What does this mean, I asked Campbell. “It finally means that AI will be transparent to the end user,” he says. iCONECT is working to integrate a continuous active learning technology that will make AI/machine learning seamless to the end user. According to Campbell, “People are looking for AI tools to be more interactive; to be similar to how they interact with other platforms, like Amazon or Spotify. We’re going to make our AI offering more intuitive and expand the self-serve capabilities within the iCONECT platform.”

Meanwhile, existing customers and partners of iCONECT are surely wondering what this arrangement means for them. Well, surely it means additional technology resources in the long run. Campbell tells me that nothing will change for existing users. There’s no change in ownership, no change in equity, and no change in personnel.

Customers will likely see an increase in brand presence in the market, but basically Campbell says they are still the same company looking to disrupt the eDiscovery market with their unique brand of innovation.

“We’ve been sitting on the sidelines for a number of years. eDiscovery software companies have come and gone over the course of 20 years. Our goal now is to confirm for everyone who backed the iCONECT horse that they made the smart decision.”

For their part, Louisville-based Newfield Capital Partners appears to have been monitoring growth in the eDiscovery space for years. Rob Bush, a partner at the firm, commented in a joint press release that “with the emerging opportunity in this space and a strong and experienced management team, we are confident that the impact on partners and end users will be very positive, resulting in significant growth for iCONECT.”

Disruption, consolidation, and innovation in the legal technology space is nothing new. There’s been a lot of movement in the past couple years. It’s good to see a little less disruption and the infusion of strategic capital into a product that’s got a vision and mission for the future. So many products have just disappeared. Clearly, it seems we have yet to see the best iCONECT has to offer.


Mike Quartararo

Mike Quartararo is the managing director of eDPM Advisory Services, a consulting firm providing e-discovery, project management and legal technology advisory and training services to the legal industry. He is also the author of the 2016 book Project Management in Electronic Discovery. Mike has many years of experience delivering e-discovery, project management, and legal technology solutions to law firms and Fortune 500 corporations across the globe and is widely considered an expert on project management, e-discovery and legal matter management. You can reach him via email at mquartararo@edpmadvisory.com. Follow him on Twitter @edpmadvisory.

Another One Bites The Dust

No matter how you’ve been doing, chances are you’ve been doing better in the past two weeks than LeClairRyan. The blows have been coming for the Am Law 200 firm at a break-neck pace. Gary LeClair, the first named partner, announced he was leaving for regional firm William Mullen. Other partners, associates, and staff have been jumping ship in droves, including entire practice groups. The landlord of a shuttered satellite office has sued for hundreds of thousands in overdue rent and promissory note payments. Every day has brought more bad news for the firm.

So it was no surprise that LeClairRyan officially announced it was forming a wind-down committee on July 31 and is in the process of dissolving. A firm with over 270 attorneys and $120 million in annual revenue will soon be no more. How in the living heck does that happen?

Why Do Law Firms Fail?

Two caveats: (1) I do not have any insider information on what happened at LeClair beyond what’s been publicly reported; and (2) I have deep sympathy for the staff and attorneys who are in the midst of this professional upheaval. That said, and with all due respect to the people living this chaos, I would be derelict in my duty as a law firm managing partner if I didn’t try to glean some lessons from LeClairRyan’s meltdown. They’re far from the only firm that’s failed publicly in the past few years, and I doubt they’ll be the last. The segment of the market we occupy is facing unique challenges in the legal market, and complacency today might mean shutters tomorrow.

The silver lining of the spate of recent firm failures is that we have some data to analyze. I’ve spoken to many lawyers who have gone through firm dissolutions, and a number of themes continue to recur in those conversations.

Coasting instead of growing. When things are going well, it’s easy to get comfortable and assume things will always remain good. This mindset is comforting to lawyers, who are trained to love the predictable and status quo, but it can be death to a business. Someone’s always coming for your market share. If you’re not taking active steps to expand your current book to keep pace with potential client attrition, then you’re just biding time until that book slips through your fingers.

Not addressing underproductive lawyers. Lawyers who don’t appear to be pulling their weight can be poisonous to a firm’s morale and cohesion. The high performers carrying an unfair share of the load feel dissatisfied. The low performers stress further, feeling simultaneously like everyone knows they’re dragging the firm down while also feeling like they’re waiting to be unmasked as unsuccessful frauds. I’m an advocate for attorneys treating each other, and themselves, with kindness and compassion. But compassion doesn’t mean inaction, and too many in firm management are unwilling or unable to address chronically underperforming attorneys. Firms need to be proactive and direct in these situations. Compensation cuts aren’t a substitute for substantive planning and discussion. It’s not pleasant to have tough conversations, put people on strict performance plans, or ultimately cut headcount, but doing so helps everyone in a firm feel more at ease. When the firm trusts management to actively handle internal disputes, its members can focus outward on building their practices instead of inward, defending their piece of the firm’s pie.

Diluting the equity pool. At a recent Hugh Simon lecture, he pointed out that if you adjust for inflation, Am Law 200 firms’ current revenue-per-lawyer stats are about where they were in 2008, but profits-per-equity partner have gone up over time. The market has shifted in the past decade toward constricting the equity pool, raising the compensation of the rainmakers who are keeping firms afloat in these leaner times, while cutting the comp of lower-performing or service partners. Whether we like it or not, this shift in the market price of rainmaking means firms that aren’t willing to pay to keep their biggest books happy are at risk of losing them to their competitors.

Letting expenses devour profit. Lawyers love the trappings of our practice, but too often lose sight of the costs we’re incurring until we’ve already begun to feel the bite. We lock our firms into expensive leases in swanky buildings, only to see our prices undercut by virtual firms and less flashy boutiques. We spend money on decorations and perks that look impressive, but probably don’t generate much new business. We get excited by high-revenue practices without considering how much expense those practices incur to bring that money in. Firms that don’t manage their costs often don’t realize they’ve slipped into unprofitability until it’s already too late.

Over-democratizing the firm. Lawyers are used to studying law. They don’t, usually, study market forces, business trends, or the emerging best practices of business management and accounting. Yet that has rarely prevented partners from developing passionate, vehement opinions about the management of their firm. Owners undoubtedly deserve a voice in the management of what they own, but firms that spread their agency too thin find themselves stuck in gridlock, unable to respond quickly to new challenges. Businesses need agility, precision, and clear delegations of power. Management teams that delegate all their power to committees, or that aren’t granted any real power to begin with, might as well be trying to paddle a canoe with a toothpick. They can make a big show and expend a lot of effort, but they’re not going to have much say over where they end up.

An Opportunity for Growth

LeClairRyan’s implosion is just one chapter in the much larger story of the sea change our industry is continuing to experience. We’ll learn more in the coming weeks what precisely brought this firm down, but the major strokes of the larger story are already well understood. We owe it to ourselves not to let this opportunity for learning and growth pass us by. We can pay attention to the forces around us, or let them drag us down as well. The choice, as always, is ours.


James Goodnow

James Goodnow is an attorneycommentator, and Above the Law columnist. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and is the managing partner of NLJ 250 firm Fennemore Craig. He is the co-author of Motivating Millennials, which hit number one on Amazon in the business management new release category. As a practitioner, he and his colleagues created a tech-based plaintiffs’ practice and business model. You can connect with James on Twitter (@JamesGoodnow) or by emailing him at James@JamesGoodnow.com.

How Successful Small Law Firms Get Ahead Of The Game

For small law practices, the risks of failing to embrace available technology include everything from a lack of mobility to a loss of financial opportunity. Think about the amount of time you spend doing things that focus on the business of law, rather than the practice of law. From invoicing to submitting expenses to tracking time, all of these tedious tasks are taking hours away from your ability to improve your firm.

Don’t you wish there was a better way to capture greater value for your hard work?

A smooth, automated, data-driven technology toolset can optimize your life. It will create an opportunity for a better work/life balance, and perhaps most importantly, give you the ability to spend more of your time at work doing what you love: practicing the law.

Click here to join TC Whittaker, leader of PwC’s Law Firm Solutions, and preeminent legal technology journalist Bob Ambrogi on Wednesday, August 21, at 1 p.m. EST for an invaluable look at how your small law practice can succeed in this digital era.

Public Consultations on the Freedom of Information Bill – The Zimbabwean

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES SERIES 31/2019

Public Consultations on the Freedom of Information Bill

Parliament has in notices published today announced that the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Information, Media and Broadcasting Services will hold public consultations on the Freedom of Information Bill (H.B. 6, 2019) from 19th August 2019 to 30th August 2019.

The Committee will cover various areas as follows:

Date Place Venue Time of Public Hearing
Monday
19 August
Harare

Bindura

New Ambassador Hotel

Hala Africa Kimberly Hotel

0900 hrs

1400 hrs

Tuesday
20 August
Marondera Mbuya Nehanda Hall 0800 hrs
Wednesday
21 August
Penhalonga/Tsvingwe Methodist Church Hall 0900 hrs
Thursday
22 August
Masvingo Civic Centre 0900 hrs
Tuesday
27 August
Plumtree

Bulawayo

Dingumuzi

Bulawayo City Hall

1000 hrs

1430 hrs

Wednesday
28 August
Tsholotsho St. Joseph’s The Worker Mission 1000 hrs
Thursday
29 August
Kwekwe

Kadoma

Mbizo Youth Centre

Rimuka Hall

1100 hrs

1430 hrs

 

Attendance

The public, interested groups and organizations are invited to attend these consultations.

But all those wearing military uniforms, signs of ranks, flags or badges and political party regalia will not have access to the public hearing.

Written submissions

Written submissions and correspondences are welcome and should be addressed to:

The Clerk of Parliament

Attention: Portfolio Committee on Information, Media and Broadcasting Services

P.O. Box CY 298

Causeway

Harare

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

Queries

Telephone: (024) 2700181-8, 2252936-50

Maria Hlasera (Committee Clerk) Ext. 2062

  1. Njovana (Public Relations Officer) Ext. 2236

Fax: (024) 2252935

About the Freedom of Information Bill

Soft copies of the Bill are available on the Veritas website [link].  Also available on the website is our e-bulletin Bill Watch 40/2019 [link] which contains comments on the Bill.

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

Eskom begins 400MW power supply to Zimbabwe

Post published in: Featured