Donald
Trump
wasn’t
lying
when
he
said
he
was
going
after
Biglaw.
The
onslaught
continues
with
20
Biglaw
firms
receiving
letters
from
the
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Commission Acting
Chair
Andrea
Lucas
informing
them
they’re
being
investigated
by
the
agency.
Lucas
writes
the
agency
is
“concern[ed]
that
some
firms’
employment
practices,
including
those
labeled
or
framed
as
DEI,
may
entail
unlawful
disparate
treatment
in
terms,
conditions,
and
privileges
of
employment,
or
unlawful
limiting,
segregating,
and
classifying
based
on
race,
sex,
or
other
protected
characteristics,
in
violation
of Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
(Title
VII).”
All
because
the
firm
has
at
any
point
made
public
statements
or
programs
in
support
of
diversity
in
the
profession.
The
following
firms
have
received
letters
from
the
EEOC
thus
far:
Notably
Paul,
Weiss
is
not
on
the
list
of
Biglaw
firms
that
have
been
notified
of
an
EEOC
investigation,
despite
the
recent
Executive
Order
targeting
the
firm
for
a
bunch
of
reasons
including
their
support
of
DEI.
I
guess
their
letter
will
be
in
the
next
tranche
to
drop
—
because
Trump’s
fight
with
the
legal
industry
is
far
from
over.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Donald
Trump
wasn’t
lying
when
he
said
he
was
going
after
Biglaw.
The
onslaught
continues
with
20
Biglaw
firms
receiving
letters
from
the
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Commission Acting
Chair
Andrea
Lucas
informing
them
they’re
being
investigated
by
the
agency.
Lucas
writes
the
agency
is
“concern[ed]
that
some
firms’
employment
practices,
including
those
labeled
or
framed
as
DEI,
may
entail
unlawful
disparate
treatment
in
terms,
conditions,
and
privileges
of
employment,
or
unlawful
limiting,
segregating,
and
classifying
based
on
race,
sex,
or
other
protected
characteristics,
in
violation
of Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
(Title
VII).”
All
because
the
firm
has
at
any
point
made
public
statements
or
programs
in
support
of
diversity
in
the
profession.
The
following
firms
have
received
letters
from
the
EEOC
thus
far:
Notably
Paul,
Weiss
is
not
on
the
list
of
Biglaw
firms
that
have
been
notified
of
an
EEOC
investigation,
despite
the
recent
Executive
Order
targeting
the
firm
for
a
bunch
of
reasons
including
their
support
of
DEI.
I
guess
their
letter
will
be
in
the
next
tranche
to
drop
—
because
Trump’s
fight
with
the
legal
industry
is
far
from
over.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Donald
Trump
wasn’t
lying
when
he
said
he
was
going
after
Biglaw.
The
onslaught
continues
with
20
Biglaw
firms
receiving
letters
from
the
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Commission Acting
Chair
Andrea
Lucas
informing
them
they’re
being
investigated
by
the
agency.
Lucas
writes
the
agency
is
“concern[ed]
that
some
firms’
employment
practices,
including
those
labeled
or
framed
as
DEI,
may
entail
unlawful
disparate
treatment
in
terms,
conditions,
and
privileges
of
employment,
or
unlawful
limiting,
segregating,
and
classifying
based
on
race,
sex,
or
other
protected
characteristics,
in
violation
of Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
(Title
VII).”
All
because
the
firm
has
at
any
point
made
public
statements
or
programs
in
support
of
diversity
in
the
profession.
The
following
firms
have
received
letters
from
the
EEOC
thus
far:
Notably
Paul,
Weiss
is
not
on
the
list
of
Biglaw
firms
that
have
been
notified
of
an
EEOC
investigation,
despite
the
recent
Executive
Order
targeting
the
firm
for
a
bunch
of
reasons
including
their
support
of
DEI.
I
guess
their
letter
will
be
in
the
next
tranche
to
drop
—
because
Trump’s
fight
with
the
legal
industry
is
far
from
over.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Donald
Trump
wasn’t
lying
when
he
said
he
was
going
after
Biglaw.
The
onslaught
continues
with
20
Biglaw
firms
receiving
letters
from
the
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Commission Acting
Chair
Andrea
Lucas
informing
them
they’re
being
investigated
by
the
agency.
Lucas
writes
the
agency
is
“concern[ed]
that
some
firms’
employment
practices,
including
those
labeled
or
framed
as
DEI,
may
entail
unlawful
disparate
treatment
in
terms,
conditions,
and
privileges
of
employment,
or
unlawful
limiting,
segregating,
and
classifying
based
on
race,
sex,
or
other
protected
characteristics,
in
violation
of Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
(Title
VII).”
All
because
the
firm
has
at
any
point
made
public
statements
or
programs
in
support
of
diversity
in
the
profession.
The
following
firms
have
received
letters
from
the
EEOC
thus
far:
Notably
Paul,
Weiss
is
not
on
the
list
of
Biglaw
firms
that
have
been
notified
of
an
EEOC
investigation,
despite
the
recent
Executive
Order
targeting
the
firm
for
a
bunch
of
reasons
including
their
support
of
DEI.
I
guess
their
letter
will
be
in
the
next
tranche
to
drop
—
because
Trump’s
fight
with
the
legal
industry
is
far
from
over.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
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 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
While
Paul
Weiss
joins
the
ranks
of
law
firms
explicitly
targeted
for
retaliation
from
the
Trump
administration,
most
of
Biglaw
remains
comfortable
with
the
old
adage
that
“a
quiet
life
is
a
happy
life”…
or
more
accurately
“silence
is
complicity.”
A
page
on
the
website
that
previously
listed
and
described
the
firm’s
Women’s
Alliance,
Black
Lawyers
Affinity
Group,
Asian
Lawyers
Affinity
Group,
etc.
is
now
just
titled
“Inclusion.”
Not
to
get
all
typeface
nerd,
but
the
“Inclusion”
in
fine
print
and
seemingly
off-center
sends
a
not
insignificant
message
about
how
much
of
a
priority
this
is
at
the
firm.
Our
commitment
to
inclusion
centers
on
fostering
an
environment
where
everyone
has
access
to
the
tools,
relationships,
and
opportunities
to
excel.
The
story
of
our
founders
demonstrates
that
the
legal
profession
thrives
when
we
welcome
the
best
and
brightest,
regardless
of
background,
and
ensure
that
talent
is
met
with
opportunity.
These
beliefs
strengthen
our
firm,
our
profession,
and
the
broader
legal
system
by
creating
an
environment
where
everyone
can
contribute
(and
succeed)
at
their
highest
level.
We
focus
on
mentorship,
sponsorship
and
community
engagement
because
talent
must
be
cultivated,
not
just
recruited.
Ultimately,
we
believe
that
being
a
firm
focused
on
creating
opportunities
for
inclusion
among
our
lawyers
strengthens
the
trust
and
connection
we
have
with
our
clients
and
moves
our
firm
and
the
legal
industry
forward.
This
is
the
“All
Lawyers
Matter”
of
firm
statements.
In
addition
to
removing
references
to
the
firm’s
work
with
specific
groups,
past
articles
on
the
subject
seem
to
have
been
disappeared
like
a
Vegas
magic
act.
This
article
from
the
Proskauer
homepage
as
recently
as
mid-January
(helpfully
archived
by
the
Wayback
Machine)…
A
search
for
the
word
“diversity”
on
the
Proskauer
brings
up
multiple
articles.
For
example:
However,
guess
which
one
of
these
articles
still
has
a
hyperlink?
It’s
been
a
long
time
since
2012,
but
if
there
were
a
Diversity
Brochure
more
recent
than
the
Mayan
endtimes,
one
would
hope
it
came
up
in
the
search.
It
also
has
no
subject
heading
—
which
is
why
it
just
says
“on
2012”
—
so
wherever
it
used
to
live
has
also
disappeared.
In
conjunction
with
reworking
the
Inclusion
page,
it’s
a
chilling
moment
for
a
lawyer,
either
at
the
firm
or
considering
joining,
to
look
up
“Diversity
Brochure”
and
find
it’s
like
an
emergency
exit
that’s
just
painted
on.
That’s
the
whole
problem…
even
if
the
firm
were
to
say,
“oh
no,
our
policy
is
still
the
same”
when
it’s
downplaying
if
not
hiding
its
policy,
then
that
is
a
statement
itself.
We’ll
see
if
the
search
function
even
brings
up
these
zombie
story
entries
by
next
week.
Not
exactly
holding
my
breath.
About
that
referendum!
To
catch
you
up,
student-led
protests
at
Harvard
Law
have
been
catching
hell
from
the
administration.
They’ve
largely
been
calling
for
ceasefires,
but
the
students
have
branched
out
their
demands
over
time.
The
most
recent
demand
called
for
the
school
to
divest
from
entities
that
are
participating
in
Israel’s
war
on
Gaza.
That’s
no
small
ask
—
billions
of
dollars
are
in
play.
The
votes
are
in
and
the
overwhelming
majority
of
Harvard
Law
students
voted
in
favor
of
the
school
divesting
from
entities
that
take
part
in
Israel’s
war
in
Gaza.
The
Crimson
has
coverage:
The
Harvard
Law
School
student
body
voted
on
Thursday
to
call
on
the
University
to
divest
from
Israel
—
delivering
a
decisive
endorsement
of
language
that
Law
School
administrators
harshly
criticized
before
it
went
up
for
a
vote.
The
resolution,
which
called
on
Harvard
to
“divest
from
weapons,
surveillance
technology,
and
other
companies
aiding
violations
of
international
humanitarian
law,
including
Israel’s
genocide
in
Gaza
and
its
ongoing
illegal
occupation
of
Palestine,”
passed
with
72.7
percent
of
votes
in
favor,
with
842
students
participating.
HLS
was
very
quick
to
clarify
that
the
opinions
of
its
voting
student
body
are
not
in
line
with
the
institution’s
stance.
Part
of
the
statement
written
by
Jeff
Neal
—
the
school’s
spokesperson
—
took
issue
with
the
“needlessly
divisive
referendum,”
saying
that
it
ran
against
the
student
government’s
stated
objective
of
“fostering
community.”
I
don’t
know,
~73%
of
people
agreeing
that
a
thing
violates
international
human
law
seems
pretty
community
building
for
folks
who
care
about
the
rule
of
(international)
law.
Ryave,
the
president
of
HLS
Tzedek,
a
group
of
pro-Palestine
Jewish
students,
added
that
“it
is
clear
that
Harvard
is
intimidated
by
our
collective
power
and
the
ever-growing
movement
for
a
liberated
Palestine.”
HLS
Tzedek
isn’t
the
only
student
group
that
spoke
on
the
referendum.
The
HLS
Alliance
for
Israel
had
this
to
say:
The
HLS
Alliance
for
Israel,
an
officially
recognized
student
group,
criticized
the
referendum
as
“plainly
discriminatory,
calling
for
divestment
from
companies
that
violate
human
rights,
but
then
falsely
pointing
to
and
moreover
singling
out
the
Jewish
state.”
I
do
think
they
are
correct
to
say
that
it
is
wrong
to
call
for
divestment
and
then
single
out
Israel.
This
is,
after
all,
a
concerted
effort.
For
example,
what
about
the
American
companies
that
are
contributing
to
the
war
effort?
Thankfully,
the
folks
over
at
American
Friends
Service
Committee
have
already
done
a
bang-up
job
of
compiling
companies
that
are
profiting
from
the
genocide
in
Gaza,
and
there
are
some
big
names
like
Boeing,
Ford,
and
General
Motors
on
the
list
—
those
are
just
some
of
the
American
companies.
A
thorough
and
coherent
rationale
for
divestment
should
include,
for
example,
American
and
German
companies,
depending
on
the
school’s
portfolio.
Whether
you
like
the
outcome
of
the
vote
or
not,
it
was
made
possible
by
a
democratic
process
and
civic
engagement.
When
and
how
Harvard
backlashes
against
the
results
of
this
referendum
will
be
an
indication
of
how
much
they
value
those
values.
Harvard
Law
School
Students
Pass
Referendum
Urging
University
To
Divest
From
Israel
[The
Crimson]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
ZANU
PF
Secretary
for
Legal
Affairs,
Patrick
Chinamasa,
has
said
the
party’s
Department
of
Legal
Affairs
is
working
on
implementing
Resolution
Number
One,
which
seeks
to
extend
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
tenure
to
2030.
Patrick
Chinamasa
Speaking
at
the
Manicaland
Provincial
Co-ordinating
Committee
meeting
in
Mutare
on
Sunday,
16
March,
Chinamasa
said
consultations
will
be
held
with
key
stakeholders,
including
the
Politburo
and
Central
Committee,
to
determine
the
best
approach
for
amending
the
Constitution.
He
said
that
if
the
proposal
is
approved,
the
party
will
direct
the
Government
to
initiate
the
constitutional
amendment
through
Parliament.
Said
Chinamasa:
Let
me
address
you
regarding
Resolution
Number
One,
adopted
at
the
national
conference
in
Bulawayo
last
year.
Those
present
will
recall
my
statement
that
the
President
intended
to
remain
in
office
until
2028,
a
stance
he
has
since
reiterated
recently.
The
question
now
arises
—
why
do
we
wish
to
extend
his
term
until
2030?
Our
rationale
is
that
his
leadership
has
been
beneficial
for
the
country,
and
we
desire
him
to
complete
the
developmental
initiatives
he
has
undertaken.
If
we
unite
and
speak
with
one
voice,
his
acceptance
will
be
in
our
favour.
The
party
has
tasked
me
as
the
Secretary
for
Legal
Affairs
with
implementing
this
resolution.
I
will
consult
stakeholders
to
determine
the
best
approach,
which
involves
amending
the
national
Constitution.
Once
we
have
a
clear
plan,
including
consultations
with
the
Politburo
and
Central
Committee,
and
if
the
Central
Committee
approves,
we
will
instruct
the
Government
to
amend
the
Constitution
through
Parliament.
As
for
the
President’s
decision,
do
not
concern
yourselves
with
whether
he
accepts
or
declines.
That
is
his
prerogative.
If
the
resolution
is
passed
and
the
Constitution
is
amended,
it
will
be
up
to
him
to
decide.
We
will
not
be
involved,
and
I
doubt
he
will
consult
us.
If
he
does,
we
will
be
fortunate.
He
also
urged
party
members
to
uphold
discipline
and
avoid
using
social
media
to
undermine
the
party
leadership,
warning
that
any
rogue
elements
would
be
expelled.
It
seems
Trump
has
indeed
not
forgotten
the
gesture
as
his
administration
spent
the
last
few
days
advancing
increasingly
goofy
legal
arguments,
confident
that
the
Roberts
Court
has
zero
qualms
rubberstamping
arguments
historically
laughed
out
of
a
pro
se
convention.
So
now
Trump
is
making
the
argument
that
court
orders
evaporate
over
international
waters,
an
argument
more
at
home
as
a
Simpsons
gag
than
in
a
federal
courtroom:
This
argument
—
about
one
step
removed
from
“ain’t
no
laws
while
drinking
Claws”
in
terms
of
recognized
legal
weight
—
began
when
Deputy
Chief
of
Staff
Stephen
Miller
and
Homeland
Security
Secretary
Kristy
Noem
sold
a
couple
planeloads
of
detained
migrants
to
the
government
of
El
Salvador.
The
United
States
will
pay
El
Salvador
to
hold
the
prisoners
as
slave
labor
in
what
is
essentially
that
underground
hell-prison
from
The
Dark
Knight
Rises.
Whatever
you
might
think
about
the
idea
of
outsourcing
convicts
to
countries
where
human
rights
are
advisory,
the
people
sent
to
El
Salvador
were
“alleged”
gang
members.
While
the
administration
talks
up
getting
rid
of
“the
bad
guys,”
they
did
not
export
adjudicated
bad
guys
but
rather
planeloads
of
innocent
until
proven
guilty
migrants
that
the
government
accuses
of
being
bad
guys.
But
here’s
the
problem
with
sending
people
to
the
Gulags
based
on
“allegations”
from
ImmDef:
To
sidestep
the
criminal
justice
process
that
might
require
the
DOJ
to
present
“evidence,”
the
White
House’s
new
legal
gambit
invokes
the
Alien
Enemies
Act
of
1789
to
cover
members
of
criminal
gangs
who
hail
from
Venezuela.
While
the
law
was
probably
unconstitutional
as
a
justification
for
sending
Japanese-Americans
to
prison
camps
after
Pearl
Harbor,
it
is
definitely
unconstitutional
as
a
justification
for
rounding
up
people
from
countries
the
U.S.
isn’t
even
at
war
with.
SECTION
1.
Be
it
enacted
by
the
Senate
and
House
of
Representatives
of
the
United
States
of
America
in
Congress
assembled,
That
whenever
there
shall
be
a
declared
war
between
the
United
States
and
any
foreign
nation
or
government,
or
any
invasion
or
predatory
incursion
shall
be
perpetrated,
attempted,
or
threatened
against
the
territory
of
the
United
States,
by
any
foreign
nation
or
government…
Not
to
get
all
textualist
or
anything,
but
note
that
there’s
no
declared
war
and
gang
members
are
not
a
foreign
government.
That’s
why
this
decision
ended
up
in
front
of
a
federal
judge
who
correctly
ordered
the
detainees
returned
to
the
United
States
to
face
the
American
justice
system.
But
the
Trump
administration
decided
it
didn’t
have
to
comply
because
—
as
explained
in
Axios:
What
international
body
of
water
were
they
over?
The
Gulf
of…
America?
HMMMMMM.
Whenever
maritime
law
comes
up,
you’re
probably
venturing
into
crackpot
territory.
This
is
a
hallmark
of
the
sovereign
citizen
movement
who
claim
the
United
States
can’t
legally
make
laws
because
the
flags
in
courtrooms
have
gold
fringe.
And,
frankly,
that
might
be
the
next
argument
advanced
by
the
DOJ
—
the
term
is
still
young!
As
you
might
imagine,
no,
this
is
not
how
the
law
works.
While
a
private
individual
might
be
able
to
take
a
boat
into
the
middle
of
the
ocean
to
sell
trafficked
panda
meat
or
something,
there
is
no
legal
basis
for
the
United
States
government
violating
a
United
States
court
order
simply
because
the
plane
—
still
fully
within
the
command
of
the
United
States
government
—
has
ventured
into
the
Gulf
of
Mexico.
The
Court
order
applies
to
the
government
and
the
government
is
still
very
much
here.
Which
raises
the
question,
who
is
the
“advice
of
counsel”
who
came
up
with
this
one?
Was
it
ChatGPT?
A
second
administration
official
said
Trump
was
not
defying
the
judge
whose
ruling
came
too
late
for
the
planes
to
change
course:
“Very
important
that
people
understand
we
are
not
actively
defying
court
orders.”
The
Active/Passive
distinction
is
not
particularly
relevant
when
it
comes
to
defying
court
orders.
The
knowing/unknowning
distinction
and
the
administration
officials
talking
to
Axios
could
not
avoid
bragging
that
they
constructed
this
situation
in
an
effort
to
passively
but
knowingly
evade
the
courts.
They
didn’t
actually
set
out
to
defy
a
court
order.
“We
wanted
them
on
the
ground
first,
before
a
judge
could
get
the
case,
but
this
is
how
it
worked
out,”
said
the
official.
Yeah,
see,
that
still
violates
the
court
order.
The
government
would
still
have
to
return
the
prisoners
to
run
through
the
existing
justice
process
here
even
if
they’d
been
assigned
bunks
in
El
Salvador’s
slave
camp.
Because,
contrary
to
administration
claims
that
this
is
about
foreign
affairs,
this
is
an
immigration
issue
and
until
these
people
are
actually
CONVICTED
of
something,
the
government
can
only
detain
them
for
immigration
processing
and
deport
them.
They
cannot,
for
example,
sell
defendants
to
a
foreign
prison
system!
But
not
to
be
outdone
by
this
“we
take
our
legal
cues
from
the
plot
of
Money
Plane”
international
waters
argument,
the
president
personally
expounded
on
a
new
theory
of
presidential
pardon
power
based
on
using
physical
ink
that
somehow
allows
him
to
“lock
her
up”
Liz
Cheney.
The
autopen
is
the
presidential
electronic
signature,
and
while
an
ardent
originalist
might
claim
the
Framers
couldn’t
foresee
such
a
thing,
the
George
W.
Bush
administration
put
out
a
whole
opinion
on
this
subject
and
settled
the
question
20
years
ago:
Under
this
well-settled
legal
understanding,
an
individual
could
sign
a
document
by
directing
that
his
signature be
affixed
to
it
by
another.
Opinions
of
the
Attorney
General
and
the
Department
of
Justice
have
repeatedly
applied
this
understanding
in
various
contexts
to
conclude
that
Executive
Branch
officials,
including
the
President,
may
satisfy
statutory
signing
requirements
in
this
manner.
This
settled
understanding
of
the
meaning
of
“sign”
leads
us
to
conclude
that
Article
I,
Section
7
permits
the
President
to
sign
a
bill
by
directing
a
subordinate
to
affix
the
President’s
signature to
it.
Nurses
at
Sally
Mugabe
Central
Hospital
in
Harare
staged
a
protest
on
Monday,
17
March,
to
highlight
deteriorating
working
conditions
that
have
disrupted
operations
at
one
of
Zimbabwe’s
largest
referral
hospitals.
The
healthcare
workers
raised
concerns
about
the
lack
of
basic
amenities,
such
as
electricity
and
running
water,
which
they
say
are
severely
affecting
their
ability
to
work
and
provide
proper
care
for
patients.
The
demonstration,
which
began
early
in
the
morning,
saw
dozens
of
nurses
holding
placards
with
slogans
like
“No
Water,
No
Power,
No
Care!”
and
“Our
Patients
Deserve
Better.”
The
nurses
voiced
their
frustration
over
the
government’s
failure
to
address
long-standing
issues
that
have
plagued
the
healthcare
system,
calling
the
situation
untenable.
One
nurse,
speaking
on
condition
of
anonymity
for
fear
of
retaliation,
said:
We
are
working
in
a
hospital
that
has
no
electricity
for
hours
on
end,
and
sometimes
there
is
no
running
water
for
days.
How
are
we
expected
to
provide
quality
care
under
such
conditions?
We
are
not
just
fighting
for
ourselves;
we
are
fighting
for
our
patients,
who
are
suffering
the
most.
Public
sector
employees
in
Zimbabwe
who
participate
in
protests
usually
face
victimisation
and
harassment
at
the
hands
of
authorities.
BULAWAYO
–
A
press
conference
organised
by
a
group
of
war
veterans
at
the
Bulawayo
Media
Centre
on
Monday
descended
into
chaos
after
it
was
disrupted
by
a
group
of
youths
claiming
to
represent
an
organisation
called
Youth
Connect.
The
war
veterans,
who
had
gathered
to
address
the
state
of
governance
in
Zimbabwe
and
announce
a
planned
march
against
corruption,
tribalism,
and
economic
decline,
accused
the
youths
of
being
“hired
hands”
and
“state
agents”
sent
to
deny
them
press
freedom
and
freedom
of
expression.
The
war
veterans
stressed
their
actions
were
not
partisan
but
driven
by
a
desire
to
see
Zimbabwe
achieve
the
political
and
economic
freedom
they
fought
for
during
the
liberation
struggle.
The
incident,
which
unfolded
in
front
of
journalists
and
uniformed
police
officers
highlights
growing
tensions
between
a
section
of
the
war
veterans
and
the
government,
as
well
as
the
challenges
faced
by
citizens
seeking
to
exercise
their
constitutional
rights.
The
press
conference
was
scheduled
to
be
addressed
by
Andreas
Ethan
Mathibela,
a
faction
leader
of
the
Zimbabwe
National
Liberation
War
Veterans
Association
(ZNLWVA),
and
Buster
Magwizi,
the
spokesperson
for
the
ZPRA
Veterans
Association.
But
before
the
war
veterans
could
begin,
they
were
confronted
by
a
group
of
youths
who
claimed
to
have
booked
the
venue
for
their
own
meeting.
Ring
leader…
The
unidentified
man
who
appeared
to
be
leading
the
disruptive
youths
The
area
outside
the
Media
Centre
venue
was
teeming
with
law
enforcement
agents
and
police,
raising
suspicions
about
the
youths’
motives.
Inside
the
venue,
the
war
veterans
questioned
the
legitimacy
of
Youth
Connect,
accusing
them
of
being
state
agents
sent
to
disrupt
their
event.
“We
came
to
the
press
club
to
address
journalists,
thinking
democracy
is
there
in
Zimbabwe,
and
people
are
allowed
to
speak.
But
if
the
law
enforcers
say
stop,
they
should
tell
us
the
reason,”
said
Magwizi,
visibly
frustrated.
Mathibela
echoed
his
sentiments,
demanding
to
know
the
youths’
intentions.
“We
didn’t
invite
Youth
Connect.
Are
you
serious
that
you
are
from
Youth
Connect?”
he
asked.
The
youths,
however,
insisted
they
had
a
legitimate
meeting
scheduled,
a
claim
dismissed
by
the
war
veterans
while
the
journalists
who
were
present
also
did
not
know
about
it.
The
war
veterans,
who
continued
saying
they
fought
in
Zimbabwe’s
liberation
struggle,
expressed
their
anger
and
disappointment
at
being
denied
the
opportunity
to
speak.
Magwizi
accused
the
youths
of
being
“state
security
problems”
sent
to
destabilise
their
efforts
to
address
the
country’s
challenges.
“We
went
to
war,
shed
our
blood
for
this
country,
for
you
guys
to
be
here
today,”
Magwizi
said,
addressing
the
youths.
“We
are
not
here
to
trouble
each
other.
Better
for
you
to
kill
us,
shoot
us.
We
saw
you
outside;
we
know
you
guys.
No-one
is
quite
a
secret
here.
We
know
that
you
are
state
agents.
You
guys
are
precipitating
violence.”
Mathibela
warned
the
youths
of
the
consequences
of
their
actions,
stating,
“you
could
be
protected
by
a
clique
of
individuals,
but
you
are
not
safe.
If
it’s
like
this,
then
let
war
start.
You’re
now
going
to
inherit
our
shadows.
If
you
don’t
kill
us,
you
must
know
what
is
coming
to
you.”
Outside
the
venue,
the
situation
escalated
when
one
of
the
youths
grabbed
Mathibela’s
cap,
prompting
a
swift
reaction
from
the
crowd.
The
youth
was
apprehended
and
handcuffed
by
police,
who
took
him
away.
“We
want
proper
governance.
We
have
a
leadership
that
is
corrupt,
nepotic,
and
tribalist.
They
have
created
a
dynasty,”
Mathibela
said.
“We
are
not
insulting
anyone;
we’re
not
engaging
in
partisan
politics.
We
don’t
belong
to
a
political
party.
We’re
war
veterans.
The
reason
we
went
to
war
was
simply
to
help
Zimbabwe
attain
political
and
economic
freedom.”
Magwizi
added,
“We
fought
for
peace,
justice,
and
truth,
but
we
are
denied
the
space
to
speak,
to
tell
the
country,
our
parents,
our
children
and
the
world
how
Zimbabwe
feels
so
that
together,
in
an
international
framework,
we
can
repair
the
ills
this
country
is
in.”
Magwizi
also
accused
the
government
of
employing
underhand
tactics
to
silence
dissent,
comparing
the
disruption
to
“Nazi
operations.”
Mathibela
added
that
despite
informing
the
police
about
their
planned
march,
state
agents
were
sent
to
intimidate
and
harass
them.
“We
have
informed
the
police,
the
commissioner
general,
that
come
Thursday,
people
are
supposed
to
go
onto
the
streets
to
exercise
their
constitutional
rights.
They
will
not
stop
us,”
Mathibela
declared.
“If
you
want
to
engage
us
physically,
that’s
where
we
will
meet.
I
will
be
there
right
at
the
front.
These
are
hired
hands;
they
have
been
bought
by
corrupt
politicians
who
are
interrupting
our
roadmap.”
Throughout
the
confrontation,
the
youths
remained
defiant,
with
one
member
heckling
Mathibela.
“We’re
here,
there
won’t
be
any
demonstration.
Do
it
and
see,”
said
the
man
wearing
pink
shorts.
Their
brazen
attitude
further
fueled
the
war
veterans’
anger,
with
Mathibela
warning
that
the
youths
would
face
consequences
for
their
actions.
However,
the
war
veterans
remain
resolute
in
their
mission.
“We
will
overwhelm
them,”
Mathibela
declared.
“Our
struggle
was
never
overnight,
but
eventually,
we
won.
We
are
war
veterans.”
Afterwards
some
youths
were
seen
being
handed
money
from
some
men
who
were
part
of
the
melee.
This
journalist
observed
the
youthful
hecklers
being
handed
$10
notes
each.
Mathibela’s
group
have
openly
pledged
support
for
Blessed
Geza,
the
war
veteran
recently
expelled
from
Zanu
PF
after
declaring
that
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
has
failed
and
“must
go
now.”
Geza
has
been
forced
into
exile
in
South
Africa
and
Blessed
Mhlanga,
a
journalist
from
Alpha
Media
Holdings
which
carried
a
video
of
Geza,
has
been
arrested
and
accused
of
inciting
violence.
Rising
discontent
among
veterans
of
the
1970s
war
of
liberation
comes
amid
growing
factionalism
in
Zanu
PF
fuelled
by
succession
politics.
Mnangagwa’s
second
and
final
term
will
terminate
in
2028,
and
the
fight
to
succeed
him
is
hotting
up.
Kathryn
