Author: TSA Press

Judge Theresa Brennan, a suspended county judge in Michigan, has now been permanently removed from office and barred from running for judicial office again for six years.

A judge being forced from office isn’t the first time a judge has gotten booted from office for ethical lapses. It isn’t even the first time in Michigan. And there’s life after getting kicked off the bench — Roy Moore manages to keep coming back from repeated expulsions like the anthropomorphized strain of herpes that he is and the rehabilitation of Alex Kozinski that no one asked for appears well underway — yet it feels like Judge Brennan may not be able to mount a comeback after setting something of a land speed record on ethics charges.

How many ethical lapses do you think one judge can be found committing? Because let’s see if she topped it. From Courthouse News Service:

Brennan was found to have not disclosed a romantic relationship with a key witness in a murder trial she presided over….

Did Brennan’s relationship have an impact on the case? “[Brennan] told a court reporter she believed the accused was guilty based on conversations she had with Furlong.” So… yes. The conviction has since been overturned and the guy awaits a new trial.

The judge also failed to disclose a close personal relationship with an attorney who appeared before her in five trials between 2014 and 2016 and denied motions to disqualify herself in those cases.

The cop and an attorney? The only time something like that’s acceptable is if you’re casting a courtroom drama and you’re worried about introducing more characters so they just have to double up and date people at work.

She was also said to be highly abusive to employees as well as attorneys, witnesses and general litigants. Employees were forced to perform personal tasks for her during business hours and also work on her re-election campaign, according to court records.

Just some light election violations and misuse of public resources for good measure.

[Brennan also] did not immediately recuse herself from her own divorce case.

In retrospect, $4 million a month in alimony did sound a little suspicious.

At least there’s not anything else…

She defied an ex-parte motion to preserve evidence for the divorce trial and made false statements under oath when deposed about it. Last December, she was charged with perjury, tampering with evidence and misconduct in office.

We’re all for second chances around here, but maybe Judge Brennan should sit out the next couple years to catch her breath.

Michigan High Court Removes Embattled Judge From Bench [Courthouse News Service]

The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a case with potentially far-reaching implications for the future of legal research, presenting the question of whether a state may assert copyright in the publication of its legal materials.

“Answering this question,” said the Eleventh U.S. Circuit of Appeals in deciding the case being appealed, “means confronting profound and difficult issues about the nature of law in our society and the rights of citizens to have unfettered access to the legal edicts that govern their lives.”

What makes the case difficult is that the publication at issue falls in a grey area between two well-established lines of precedent. On one hand, it is well established that governments may not claim copyright in “government edicts,” such as cases, statutes, and regulations. On the other hand, it is equally well established that private publishers may claim copyright in explanatory and supplementary material they author, such as annotations and headnotes.

The case, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, involves the state of Georgia’s claim of copyright in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA), the official codification of Georgia’s laws, which is published by LexisNexis under contract by the state, and which includes annotations written by LexisNexis, but subject to editorial control and approval by the Georgia Code Revision Commission.

In 2013, Carl Malamud, CEO of Public.Resource.Org, a site devoted to making government information more accessible to the public, paid $1,207.02 to purchase the entire print set of the OCGA. He then scanned the set and posted it to his site. He also sent copies on thumb drives to various Georgia legislative officials and distributed copies to other websites.

The Code Revision Commission sent Malamud multiple notices demanding that he take down the materials and cease and desist from publishing them. When Malamud refused, the commission, on behalf of the Georgia legislature, filed suit in federal court in Atlanta.

In the district court, Georgia prevailed. The court granted partial summary judgment, concluding that the annotations lack the force of law and are therefore not public domain material. The court also rejected Public.Resource.Org’s argument that its publication was protected by the fair use doctrine.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding that Georgia could not assert a valid copyright interest in any part of the OCGA.

[W]e conclude that the annotations in the OCGA are sufficiently law-like so as to be properly regarded as a sovereign work. … As a consequence, we conclude that the People are the ultimate authors of the annotations. As a work of the People the annotations are inherently public domain material and therefore uncopyrightable.

In its petition for Supreme Court review, Georgia argued that the annotations to the Georgia code lack the force of law and therefore are not subject to the government edicts doctrine. It argued that the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation was a “novel expansion” of the doctrine and is at odds with the decisions of four other federal circuits.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision, said Georgia’s petition, “threatens to upend the longstanding arrangements of Georgia and numerous other states that rely on copyright’s economic incentives to create and distribute annotations useful to guide legal research, while ensuring that the states’ laws are widely disseminated and easily accessible.”

In its response to Georgia’s petition, Public.Resource.Org supported the request for Supreme Court review, citing confusion and inconsistency among lower courts in applying the government edicts doctrine, but it argued that the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion was correct.

Here, the State of Georgia decided that its only official code should be annotated. The state itself oversaw the preparation of the work, even though it farmed out to an experienced code publisher the labor of organizing the statutes and drafting the annotations. The state registered the copyright in the annotations in its own name, compensating the publisher only by giving it an exclusive license for a limited term.

Georgia is one of only nine states that include annotations as part of its official legislative code. But at least 20 states have registered copyright in all or part of their codes. States and private publishers also claim copyright in various other government-related legal materials. For this reason, legal publishers on both sides of the issue are hoping the court will lay to rest any confusion about the applicability of copyright to the law.

The court’s ruling could affect other pending litigation. Two legal research companies, Fastcase and Casemaker (via its parent Lawriter LLC), have been engaged in litigation for a number of years over Casemaker’s claim of copyright in Georgia administrative regulations. Last October, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a lower court’s summary judgment for Casemaker and remanded the case for further proceedings.

And in 2017, a federal court issued a permanent injunction barring Public.Resource.Org from publishing technical and scientific standards that are written by private standards developing organizations (SDOs) but that are incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations.

More broadly, the decision could have broad implications for access to law, say a group of law students, law professors, and small-firm lawyers in an amicus curiae brief supporting the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. Unfettered access to the law is required, they argue, for law students to learn, legal educators to teach, and lawyers to advise their clients competently.

The decision could also impact the future of innovation and accessibility in legal research, say a group of “next-generation” legal research platforms and a digital accessibility advocate who also filed an amicus brief. Allowing copyright in legal materials, they argue,

hinders the valuable work being done by legal innovators, like amici, who create tools to inform and empower the public and everyone in the legal field. Amici’s innovative tools increase access to the law and to justice; they also improve the efficiency and quality of legal advocacy and legal services through an array of sophisticated new research, distribution, visualization, and predictive analytics tools.

Even some of the publishers who currently benefit from these copyrights argue that the current state of uncertainty in the law could inhibit innovation and investment in legal research products. The Software & Information Industry Association — of which LexisNexis is a member — filed an amicus brief arguing that, because of this uncertainty, “SIIA’s members will necessarily be discouraged from investing in the production of law-adjacent works.”

Many entities have stakes in the outcome of this case. The governments that claim copyright. The publishers that own the licenses. The non-profits that seek to distribute these materials. The next-generation research companies that want to fill out their libraries.

But in the end, the Eleventh Circuit got it right when it described the significance of this case as one that implicates “the rights of citizens to have unfettered access to the legal edicts that govern their lives.”

Robert Ambrogi is a Massachusetts lawyer and journalist who has been covering legal technology and the web for more than 20 years, primarily through his blog LawSites.com. Former editor-in-chief of several legal newspapers, he is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management and an inaugural Fastcase 50 honoree. He can be reached by email at ambrogi@gmail.com, and you can follow him on Twitter (@BobAmbrogi).

The New York Mets in their worst season didn’t have as many errors as this indictment.

— Mark White, of White Arnold & Dowd, representing Marshae Jones told AL.com he will be filing a motion to dismiss the charges against his client. Jones’s criminal case rose to national prominence when Alabama indicted her for her fetus’s death after she was shot and the charges against the shooter were dropped. Jones’s case has been a source of outrage for those that see this as a dystopian extension of Alabama’s anti-choice laws. White went on to say “It appears that someone who should’ve been objective decided to frame the narrative for their own personal political reasons.” He also noted Jones’s case was an “unprecedented, inappropriate charge that is not permitted under that the law in Alabama.”

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).

Last month, amid news that thanks to smaller law school class sizes, the overall employment picture is looking brighter (even if artificially), we wondered if law school tuition cuts and freezes would be making a comeback. After all, law graduates are still being burdened by incredibly heavy debt loads.

The University of Hawaii William R. Richardson School Law recently decided to freeze its tuition until 2023. Has anyone followed suit? You betcha! Today, we have news that the University of South Carolina School of Law has slashed its tuition “significantly.” But just how significantly are we talking?

According to The State, a 17.3 percent tuition cut has been made for in-state students to compete with other state universities. Tuition for in-state students at South Carolina Law will be $5,100 cheaper next year — down to $24,508 from $29,608 — thanks to an infusion of cash from the state legislature.

Under [House budget committee chairman Murrell] Smith’s direction, S.C. lawmakers increased the state’s spending on the University of South Carolina by about $8 million this year, with an understanding that USC leaders would direct $1.9 million of it specifically to lower tuition at the law school where a number of state lawmakers got their degrees.

The new money brings USC’s in-state tuition in line with UNC, but still not as low as Georgia. Wilcox said he is most excited for current students who recently were notified their tuition bill would drop next year.

Smith, a 1993 USC Law graduate himself, paid less than $2,000 a semester to attend the school. “I literally could (work as a law) clerk during the school year and summer and pay my law school tuition,” he said. “I know those days are gone, but … we’re not doing our young people any favors by leaving them with enormous debt.”

Dean Robert Wilcox had this to say about the law school’s tuition cuts: “It’s probably the best news that a couple hundred law students have received in some time.”

Congratulations to all of the in-state students at South Carolina Law who will benefit from their cheaper tuition, and condolences to the school’s out-of-state students, who will still be getting hosed with a $54,502 cost of attendance.

Will other law schools step up to decrease or freeze tuition in an effort to assist their graduates with their future loan payments? We certainly hope so, but in the meantime, time is ticking and interest on current students’ loans is already piling up. The time to make a decision is now. Help your future graduates as much as you can.

In an era of rising college costs, USC’s law school is slashing tuition significantly [The State]

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.

As the 2019 ATL Law School Rankings that came out late last month quipped, “[m]ost people attend law school to obtain jobs as lawyers.”  Whether that statement (and the ATL rankings rubric more generally) wrongly downplays other important things law schools and law students do, there is no doubt that job placement is (increasingly) important to schools and to current and prospective attendees.  With that in mind, and given that early fall marks the start of a very important interview season for many (though not all) law students, in this month’s and next month’s First Monday Musings columns, I — joined by two subject-matter experts (Joshua Vincent, a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson who has been leading efforts to develop legal talent there for many years, and Greg Miarecki, my very effective and accomplished Dean of Career Services at Illinois and a former partner at Winston & Strawn) — offer advice on how to get the most out of the interview process and increase your chances of getting the job you want.

Although each of the three of us has practice experience in a large law firm, the advice we offer here applies to any kind of job in the legal profession, whether it be in Biglaw, small to mid-sized firms, public interest organizations, the government sector, or in-house legal departments.  This month we will offer some basic principles to focus on before an interview begins in earnest; in next month’s installment, we will offer guidance for how to succeed during the interview itself and afterward.

First things first:  It’s (most) important to understand what interviewers are looking for the most.  While the objectives of a particular employer might vary from those of another employer around the margins, every employer wants three basic things:

1. Someone who wants this job: Employers really want to find someone who wants to work for their particular firms or organizations.  They don’t want someone who is “settling” for them.  Why?  Because new lawyers generally cost time and money to train.  Statistics show that most new attorneys are not particularly cost effective for their employers (whether in the private, public, or non-profit sectors) in the first year.  If you leave after a year (or even two), an employer’s investment in you has not yet generated any significant return.  So an employer, for the most part, wants to find people who want to be with it long-term and who see it as a “dream destination” rather than a stop along the way.
2. Someone who can help its organization progress: This is the classic reason employers seek to hire; they want people who can add value to what they already do, and help them do it better (or differently, if difference is an improvement).  If you can provide employers with specifics on the value you can add to their particular organizations, you will be ahead of the game.
3. Someone who will fit in well with the organization and its culture: This too is a most basic interview criterion.  Does the interviewer like you?  Would the interviewer (and others at the organization) want to spend time with you?

With this basic framework laid out, here’s more detail on how to prepare for your interview:

Avoid interviewing with firms and other organizations that you are not interested in. Do not apply to jobs that you do not expect will satisfy you. Employers are generally able to tell when you are not sincerely interested in working for them. Doing interviews for “the experience” is a waste of your time and the employers’ time.

Do research on each employer. An employer will favor candidates who know a great deal about its work and its clients. What kinds of legal matters does the employer handle? Use the internet to learn about specific cases, deals, regulations, legal issues, etc., with which the employer has historically — and recently — been involved. Carefully review the employer’s website; a sophisticated employer will expect you to be familiar with this material. Talk to people who currently work at the employer, or have worked there in the past. Alumni and students (who have just completed summer associate programs or externships) from your law school are excellent resources. Targeted email outreach to a few attorneys or former summer associates is usually best. Avoid “blanket” emails to large groups of attorneys who work for that employer.

Do research on your particular interviewers. Generally, employers will give you in advance a list of the particular people who will conduct your interviews. If you do not receive such a list, politely ask for one, explaining that you would like to be as prepared as possible.  Review any available online material regarding the folks you will meet, and be ready to ask them specific questions about their practices and experiences. Helpful research includes running a Westlaw or Lexis search to identify specific cases in which your interviewers may have been involved. Lawyers love to talk about their cases and will be greatly impressed if you can ask intelligent questions about published decisions in cases they handled.

Develop a list of non-generic reasons why you want this job. Be specific, with respect to both the employer and you. Identify the practice areas, types of work, employer objectives, types of clients and cases, the size of employer, the location, the culture, etc., that excite you, and explain why. Rely on information gathered during your research. Avoid generalities, such as “the firm has a great reputation” or “I understand the office has a collegial culture.”

Develop a list of benefits the employer would enjoy if they hired you. Again, be specific. Tailor what you bring to the table that relates directly to the particular employer. Discuss strengths and skills, connections to relevant persons or institutions, unique experiences or attributes, and the like. Provide examples. Don’t simply say, “I am a hard worker.” Provide an illustration of how your diligence and conscientiousness benefitted a previous employer or organization at which you worked.

Practice. Mock interviews are tremendously important to improving your chances of doing well in the actual interview.  Do a dry-run interview with a friend, a counselor, a professor, or an attorney, giving them as much information as you can about the particular employer so that they can think from that employer’s perspective.  Practice-interview sessions specific to each employer or class of employers will give you valuable feedback you can use to hone your skills.

As you get ready to begin a live interview, start by going back and reminding yourself of the three basic things employers care most about that are we mentioned above. Then consider the following pre-game tips:

Dress Like a Professional.  Suits are generally acceptable, unless you are directed otherwise by the employer.  When in doubt about a fashion question, remember that the legal profession is generally relatively conservative.

Arrive on time. Late interviewees rarely get the job.  Being late signals lack of interest and organizational ability.  Make sure you know exactly where the interview will take place (the room or floor, not just the building) and how long it will take to get there — accounting for direction snafus, weather, cabs, traffic, check-in procedures, elevators, etc.

Bring relevant materials. Bring copies of all materials pertinent to your candidacy (including extra résumés, writing samples, transcripts, and anything else requested by the employer), but do not provide them unless specifically asked to.

Greet everyone with a smile and a firm handshake, and be confident and enthusiastic about the position. Project happiness and optimism. Sound excited about the prospect of working for this employer. Make the interviewers feel as though they are offering a tremendous opportunity for the successful candidate.

In Part Two, next month, we will delve more deeply into underappreciated things to do (and things to avoid) during the meat of the interview session and then after it concludes.  Stay tuned.

Vikram Amar is the Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, where he also serves the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law. His primary fields of teaching and study are constitutional law, federal courts, and civil and criminal procedure. A fuller bio and CV can be found at https://www.law.illinois.edu/faculty/profile/VikramAmar, and he can be reached at amar@illinois.edu.

‘Nation embraces Zim dollar . . . Country has returned to normalcy, President says’. This was a headline in the Chronicle. Sadly there is an element of truth in this. What we face is indeed ‘normalcy’ under Zanu PF.

MDC Vice President Tendai Biti was finance minister during the four years of the abnormal Government of National Unity when the economy was turned around. He says: ‘Zimbabwe is in crisis. But to expect the ruling ZANU PF government to resolve this is improbable at best. It is, more likely, impossible.

‘Today nearly four out of every five Zimbabweans just about survives in absolute poverty. On average, Zimbabweans are poorer now than they were at independence in 1980. Informal employment is at 95%, which is why the civil service has more than doubled over the last ten years to 600,000 employees – this is the only place the government can create jobs.

‘Whole communities today live on less than 35 cents per person per day. In practice, this pays for a small dollop of maize, four leaves of vegetables, and a cap of cooking fat. We have a term for this, Tsaona, which means living by “accident”. But the crisis Zimbabwe faces is no accident. This is a man-made calamity. Over the last 39 years of independence, ZANU PF has presided over the disintegration of the productive sector of the economy. Driven by sheer incompetence, greed, and the need for regime survival, the party has completely destroyed a once thriving economy.’

Biti said industries closed and infrastructure was not maintained. ‘Thirdly, the backbone of Zimbabwe’s economy was ripped out when the farming sector was politically redistributed through ill-planned and badly-executed land reform exercises, aimed not at the empowerment of citizens but the enrichment of elites. Fourthly, to paper over these deep problems and continue to make profits for the elites, monetary policy became a tool for further enrichment, resulting in Zimbabwe’s inflation reaching 500 billion percent.

‘In today’s Zimbabwe, the elites prosper, in spite of the misery, and because of mal-governance. They use their preferential access to dollars to arbitrage against other local, artificial digital currencies. Furthermore, they have created cartels that are able to entirely control the import and distribution of fuel coming into the country. Meanwhile, the military and other favoured clients are offered mining concessions that are then parcelled out opaquely to friends, local and foreign. Finally, the government’s agricultural scheme, appropriately named “command agriculture”, amounts to a $4 billion private piggy bank used to finance everything from private vehicles to dowries. ZANU PF cannot realistically be expected to reform a system that it not only profits from but on which its rule depends.’

Biti said the MDC is ready to play a part in Zimbabwe’s recovery and those interested in the plight of the Zimbabwean people should urge the government to the negotiating table. He said: ‘A failure to do so will be measured in a loss of hope and a grave humanitarian crisis which can only be met by increased state repression.’ (See: https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zanu-pf-needs-the-opposition-to-fix-the-zimbabwes-crisis/).

Other points

• President Mnangagwa says he is to appoint a commission of inquiry to examine allegations by Zanu PF’s youth wing of of corruption by senior party members, including ministers. The Vigil expects the usual cover up.
• The government has refused to uphold the rule of law in the case of the illegal seizure by police twelve years ago of a farm in the Bubi district of Matabeleland North in spite of a court order. The deadlock has blocked an initiative supported by the local community to develop a conservancy aimed at encouraging tourism.
• Things are getting so bad that the lucky few who have jobs are opting to stay overnight at their work places to save the cost of going home. The Vigil has seen a letter to the board chair of the POSB Bank in Harare about the situation (see: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157228543753704&set=a.10150307778113704&type=3&theater).
• After the Vigil activists attended a fundraising dinner for our sister organisation the Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe. See the pictures on Flickr.
• Thanks to those who came early to help set up the front table today and put up the banners: Gertrude Mudede, Tsitsi Nyirongo, Hazvinei Saili, Ephraim Tapa and Bridget Zhakata. Thanks to Tsitsi and Bridget for looking after the front table, to Hazvinei, Beaulah Gore, Marvellous Chinguwa and Bianca Mpawaenda for handing out flyers, to Mary, Fungisai Mupandira and Getrude for drumming, to Isabell Gwatidzo for selling raffle tickets for ROHR fundraising and to Bianca for photos.
• For latest Vigil pictures check: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/. Please note: Vigil photos can only be downloaded from our Flickr website. 

FOR THE RECORD: 24 signed the register. 

EVENTS AND NOTICES:

• ROHR general members’ meeting. Saturday 6^th July from 11.30 am. Venue: Royal Festival Hall, South Bank Centre, Belvedere Road SE1 8XX. Contact: Ephraim Tapa 07940793090, Patricia Masamba 07708116625.
• ROHR sponsored walk. Saturday 27^th July. Contact: Esther Munyira 07492058109, Sipho Ndlovu 07400566013, Patricia Masamba and Farai Muroiwa 07365431776. More information as plans progress.
• 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:

Post published in: Featured

HARARE, ZIMBABWE — Peter Kansile says he was born in prison. His mother was incarcerated while she was pregnant with him, he says, because she killed his father and brother.

Kansile lived in children’s homes when he was young, then on the street from age 10. It was around that time, he says, that he began to break the law.

“I committed several crimes for which I was imprisoned several times,” he says.

Now 32, Kansile has been released for what he hopes will be the final time. He had served eight years of a 27-and-a-half-year sentence for stealing livestock when he was released in March 2018 under an amnesty granted by President Emmerson Mnangagwa, which freed those jailed for a number of crimes, including stock theft.

Today, he says he’s committed to making his living legally, and survives by trading clothes across the border with South Africa. “I am a changed person, and I believe in God,” he says.

Mnangagwa’s 2018 amnesty saw 3,000 people released from Zimbabwean prisons. The move has divided communities between those celebrating their newfound freedom and those who want offenders to serve their full sentences.

Yemurai is one of the latter group. She says that because of the amnesty, she now often runs into the man who raped and infected her 7-year-old daughter with HIV.

“I see him almost every day,” Yemurai says, who asked that only her first name be published to protect her daughter’s privacy.

Yemurai wants early releases to be stopped and for perpetrators to serve their full terms.

“These amnesties do not take into consideration the people that got offended or hurt, such as my family,” she says.

The right of a Zimbabwean president to issue pardons at their discretion is enshrined in the country’s constitution. The measure is designed to ease congestion in the prison system. Beneficiaries traditionally include women (excluding those imposed with the death penalty), juveniles, the terminally ill and prisoners who have served more than a quarter of their sentence. There are no formal criteria for release under an amnesty.

I am a changed person and, I believe in God. Peter Kansile, 32, who was incarcerated for stealing livestock, but recently released under a presidential amnesty

A dozen mass amnesties have occurred since 1980, said Assistant Commissioner Elizabeth Banda of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Service in a written statement to Global Press Journal.

“Amnesties have been helpful to correctional service in the sense that, apart from decongesting our institutions, it helps us ascertain how much society is prepared to accept offenders back into society,” she wrote.

In the past, amnesties have generally not included people imprisoned for sexual offenses, murder, livestock theft, carjacking, armed robbery or treason. But the 2018 amnesty was different. Those convicted of livestock theft, like Kansile, were released, as well as those incarcerated for rape and other violent crimes.

Pedzisai Ruhanya, a political analyst at the Zimbabwe Democracy Institute, says that by releasing such prisoners, as well as those imprisoned for political crimes, Mnangagwa was sending a message of tolerance in the months before the elections of July 2018.

Ruhanya says the release of Yvonne Musarurwa, a prominent activist for Zimbabwe’s main opposition party who was accused of killing a policeman, was a key part of that strategy.

For many, it’s the lack of clarity over how and why offenders are released that causes problems. Right now, prisoners are released based on the nature of their original crime or their behavior in prison, not on whether they have reformed.

Sekai Mandiyanike of Prison Fellowship Zimbabwe, an organization that supports people in prison, former prisoners and their families, says she is in favor of amnesties, but that the criteria for release need to be more consistent.

Mandiyanike says clemency should be reserved for those who have changed their ways.

“There should be assessment on individual basis [to] determine whether people have repented,” she says.

Leonard Wood, 38, says he was tried and sentenced for stealing livestock in 2012. His wife was also imprisoned after being found guilty of the same crime. Wood says the conditions in prison were dire.

“Life in prison was hard if you didn’t have anyone like a relative to help you with basics,” he says.

Wood says his mother came to the prison often to bring him essential items like toothpaste and soap. But he says the food was still inadequate for most prisoners.

“We would get a small portion of sadza with about eight beans in water soup to eat,” Wood says. Sadza, a cornmeal-based dish, is a staple food in Zimbabwe.

“Some suffered from malnutrition because of the poor quality of food,” he adds.

Wood’s wife got out early under an amnesty granted by former president Robert Mugabe in 2014, he says. But he had to serve four more years before being released under the amnesty granted by Mnangagwa.

As difficult as conditions were in prison, Wood says life outside isn’t easy, either. He’d planned to set up a chicken farm, but Zimbabwe’s crippled economy, in which most people struggle to find work that pays enough to cover basic expenses, made that dream impossible.

“So far, I have nothing to do, because of the prevailing economic situation,” he says.

Linda Mujuru, GPJ, translated some interviews from Shona to English.

Zimbabwean Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube this week gazetted the banning of the South African rand, US dollar and other foreign currencies for local transactions.

“Basically one head of cauliflower costs US$1 and I have to work with a price around that at the prevailing exchange rate for the Zim dollar. Yesterday I sold some stock and at the weekend I will also sell some more using the same strategy so that I am not affected by the changes on the market,” he said.

Others with sufficient room to adopt a wait and see attitude have delayed projects such as construction of residential houses until the pricing regime stabilises. It is a strategy viewed as a shot in the dark by others as they feel that there is no certainty to how the situation will pan out.

It seems though that investors and traders on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE)will not enjoy such room to manoeuvre. The local equities market had become a haven for investors running away from highly volatile money markets.

As of Wednesday, the Zimbabwean exchange market started falling and dual-listed companies such as Old Mutual have been the most affected, losing as much as 17 per cent on Wednesday.

This was after the government imposed a “vesting period of 90 days on disposal of dual listed securities or shares purchased by investors” on the ZSE.

Analysts at IH Securities said in a note that “the confusion in currency policy direction has left the economy in limbo” as the economy was previously “heavily” subsidized. “There as has been an apparent de-dollarisation in some sectors of the economy,” added the analysts.

Consumer companies such as KFC Zimbabwe and Simbisa Brands, which runs Steers and Nando’s outlets, reverted back to Zim dollar pricing. Supermarkets such as Pick n Pay and OK Zimbabwe were also no-longer accepting foreign currencies, with confusion and scepticism building among consumers over high pricing.

Denford Mutashu, president of the Confederation of Zimbabwe Retailers said pricing distortions in the market were emanating from the parallel market exchange rates.

He said: “The interbank exchange rate market has to be fully operationalised and liberalised to ensure that companies that import raw materials are guaranteed access to the funds they need.”

Zimbabwe’s currency markets are meanwhile in a tail-spin, with the interbank market exchange rate for the Zim dollar against US dollar losing ground from around 1:6.3 at the beginning of the week to a high of 1:8.6 at some financial institutions such as First Capital Bank, formerly Barclays Zimbabwe.

This is in contrast to parallel market rates that have fallen from a high of 1:12 at the weekend to 1:7 by Thursday. This has left the market confused but is likely to play to the advantage of the government which has battled price increases fuelled by the parallel market rate surge which has left official inflation at 97.7 percent for May

“There is no float (mobile banking and electronic bank funds) and the bond notes (Zimdollar) is in short supply such that we have been turning away clients with higher amounts of forex who are looking for local funds,” said a currency trader. “People are saying the banks are now paying more, but I don’t think that will continue for a long time,” she added.