You Did It, Bar None! Woop Woop!

Not pictured: Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher

Hello from the other side! Some of you studied a reasonable amount of time each day over the last few months. Others crammed 1L outlines “borrowed” from a friend when they weren’t looking. You now have my permission to catch up on Netflix. The 5 hours you usually allocate to reviewing trusts and estates? Take a sleep. Not a nap, a sleep! Either way, you are here, and you can breathe knowing you don’t have to touch bar exam materials ever again.

Hopefully.

Welcome to the profession [in a few months], future Esquires!


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. Before that, he wrote columns for an online magazine named The Muse Collaborative under the pen name Knehmo. He endured the great state of 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 cwilliams@abovethelaw.com.

‘State Of The Rules’ On Third-Party Funding In International Arbitration

The role of third-party funding in international arbitrations is on the rise, in both common and civil law jurisdictions. Lake Whillans is meeting that demand with expanded capabilities and investments in the space. To help our audience understand the developing corpus of rules and guidance set forth by international arbitral institutions addressing such matters as disclosure obligations and confidentiality, we asked Ari MacKinnon, Aaron Gavin, and Leila Mgaloblishvili of Cleary Gottlieb to provide an overview.

Third-party funding is an increasingly attractive option for parties looking to manage the risks or costs of international arbitration as well as investors seeking to diversify their investments and potentially achieve attractive returns. Although historically third-party funding ran afoul of the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty, prohibiting third-party meddling in lawsuits, third-party funding is now permitted in most common law jurisdictions—including Hong Kong, Singapore, Nigeria, England, Wales, and the United States, which have enacted legislation or developed case law to expressly allow for third-party funding of international arbitration—as well as in civil law jurisdictions which never enacted such comparable prohibitions.

Because of the increasing acceptance and use of third-party funding, international arbitral institutions have issued rules and guidance over the past several years addressing the basic rules governing third-party funding relationships. In this article, we provide an overview of the state of these rules. Recent developments in international arbitration suggest a basic convergence around the need to disclose the existence of third-party funding and the identity of the funder during the early stages of an arbitral proceeding. Other related considerations—including the impact of third-party funding on privilege and confidentiality, the scope of additional disclosure, and security-for-costs or costs awards—are less clearly defined and may continue to evolve in the foreseeable future.

Disclosure Obligations of Third-Party Funding
Over the past several years, arbitral institutions have issued rules and guidance in favor of disclosing third-party funding relationships. This trend has been driven by a recognition of the need to identify and avoid conflicts of interests between funders and arbitrators, which can threaten the enforcement of awards and the perceived integrity of arbitral proceedings. As early as 2014, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest recommended the disclosure of “any legal or physical person having a controlling influence on the legal entity, or a direct economic interest in, or a duty to indemnify a party for, the award to be rendered in the arbitration.” In line with this recommendation, a number of popular regional arbitral institutions, including HKIAC, SIAC, CIETAC, MARC, CAM-CCBC, and Milan Chamber of Arbitration, adopted rules requiring disclosure of the existence and identity of third-party funding.

Most recently, two of the most prominent international arbitral institutions—the ICC and ICSID—adopted similar proposals, signaling the crystallization of the trend towards disclosure. The June 2021 ICSID Draft Rules propose requiring a funded party to disclose, “upon registration of the Request for arbitration, or immediately upon concluding third-party funding arrangement,” the name and address of any third party from whom it, “directly or indirectly, has received funds….” with the explicit goal of “the prevention of conflicts of interest.” Earlier this year, the ICC revised its arbitration rules to introduce, among other things, a disclosure requirement for third-party funding at the outset of an arbitration. Article 11(7) of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules now requires parties to “promptly” disclose the existence and identity of “any non-party which has entered into an arrangement for the funding of claims or defenses and under which it has an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration.”

The Developing Legal Regime
While the regulatory framework on third-party funding is converging around mandatory disclosure of the existence and identity of a funding relationship, other aspects of the applicable legal rules remain relatively underdeveloped. In an effort to address this gap, the ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding undertook an extensive review of the current state of applicable legislation, rules, case law and arbitral practice and issued an expansive Report on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration in 2018 with a set of best practices on issues relevant to third-party funding, including privilege and confidentiality, the scope of disclosure of the funding relationship, and the treatment of costs. Arbitral institution have yet to converge around a common set of principles governing these issues. To the extent that such issues implicate domestic legal regimes, and not simply arbitral procedure, a pluralism of legal rules and regimes are likely to remain in play.

Privilege and Confidentiality
Due to the eventual disclosure of their funding relationship, arbitral parties and third-party funders must often consider whether any discussions or exchange of documents during the engagement process might implicate or otherwise waive relevant privileges. Generally, most legal regimes provide for rules or exceptions that will allow funders and parties to preserve privilege. Nevertheless, because it may be difficult to anticipate what set of rules applies, and there is variation in protection across legal regimes, parties may need to anticipate what body or bodies of law will apply to their prospective case and ensure that any external due diligence of their potential claims leaves relevant privileges intact.

Specifically, arbitral tribunals at times may exercise discretion in determining the applicable choice of law for such privileges, based on such considerations as the seat of the arbitration, the place where discovery is sought, the jurisdiction of legal counsel, the domicile of the parties, or the law governing the parties’ dispute. Moreover, the legal rules about privileges may vary based on the applicable law and jurisdiction. For instance, common law jurisdictions that provide for more extensive discovery or disclosure during litigation in their national courts often have well-developed jurisprudence regarding the interaction of the attorney-client privilege (protecting communications between a party and its counsel) and work-product privilege (protecting materials prepared in anticipation of the dispute) with discovery or disclosure obligations. By contrast, civil law jurisdictions that often provide for less discovery or disclosure during litigation in their national courts may have less well-defined or extensive jurisprudence regarding the interaction of privileges based on the professional secrecy obligations of counsel with discovery or disclosure obligations.

Certain arbitration rules, for example the HKIAC Rules, have introduced express provisions regarding non-waiver, signaling a potential trend towards non-waiver of privilege. The Queen Mary Taskforce Report similarly recommends that “[f]or information that is determined to be privileged under applicable laws or rules, tribunals should not treat that privilege as waived solely because it was provided by parties or their counsel to a third-party funder for the purpose of obtaining funding or supporting the funding relationship.”

Disclosure of the Funding Agreement
Although many arbitral institutions require disclosure of the existence or identity of a third-party funder, further disclosure, including about the funding agreement itself, is generally not required. Arbitral institutions have been hesitant to provide for such disclosure, which is not relevant to avoiding conflicts of interests between funders and arbitrators and could prejudice the funded party without providing any tangible benefits for resolving the underlying dispute.

Nevertheless, this general rule does not mean that further disclosure will never be required (and is not prohibited by existing rules); rather, further disclosure will be at the discretion of the tribunal. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary by the parties, arbitral tribunals have the authority to issue procedural orders and direct parties to produce documents, including a funding agreement, in connection with the arbitration. Moreover, some arbitral institutions have proposed making more explicit the authority of the tribunal to request further disclosure. For example, the ICSID Draft Rules propose clarifying that tribunals have the discretion to request further information regarding the third-party funding agreement and the funder as needed.

Aside from the tribunal, opposing parties may also seek discovery of the funding agreement, in which case the applicant usually will need to establish that the agreement is relevant to the substantive claims or defenses of the arbitration, or some other request for relief, and comports with the procedural rules governing the arbitration. While making a persuasive showing may prove difficult in most cases, under the right set of circumstances, applicants may be able to present a compelling case. For example, in the context of investor-state arbitration, several states have sought to obtain third-party funding agreements between claimant-investors and third-party funders who are nationals of the respondent-states. Because many investment treaties impose strict diversity requirements upon putative claimants (i.e., the claimant-investor cannot be a national of the respondent-state), respondent-states have occasionally sought to use funding agreements involving third-party funders that are its own nationals to argue that there is no complete diversity because the funder is effectively in control of or has effectively been assigned the investment claim.

Security-for-Costs and Costs Applications
With increasing disclosure of third-party funding, arbitral parties may also find themselves increasingly litigating over security-for-costs applications, especially where the party seeking third-party funding is financially distressed. Because arbitral tribunals do not have jurisdiction over third-party funders who are not party to the arbitration agreement, opposing parties may seek security for costs from funded parties who may otherwise escape paying for any final costs award upon unsuccessfully prosecuting their claims.

While applicants are often driven to seek security for costs for these reasons, mere financial distress alone is usually insufficient to prevail on an application. Often, an applicant must show exceptional circumstances—including, for example, a history of failing to pay for cost awards by the opposing party—or a change of circumstances from when the applicant signed the contract containing the arbitral clause with the opposing party. To the extent there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may have caused the opposing party’s distress in the course of their dispute, arbitral tribunals will usually find that this weighs against granting an application. For similar reasons, the existence of a third-party funding agreement is usually insufficient for obtaining security-for-costs. In addition, it bears emphasis that many parties procure third-party funding for reasons other than distress and thus third-party funding may not be indicative of such distress.

Despite these limiting principles, arbitral rules still generally allow tribunals to take into account third party funding when apportioning the costs of the arbitration. The ICSID Draft Rules expressly allow tribunals to order security for costs and has provided a non-exhaustive list of relevant considerations, including the existence of a third-party funder. The 2017 SIAC Practice Note on third party funding similarly specifies that the existence and involvement of a third party funder can be taken into account in apportioning the costs of the arbitration and awarding costs. Other regional organization, such as HKIAC and CETAC, also have explicit rules to this effect. To the extent the party who sought third party funding is distressed or insolvent, any decision by the funder to undertake adverse costs liability will likely impact the tribunal’s decision on this issue.

Funded parties and funders could additionally consider adverse costs insurance to reduce the likelihood of security-for-costs disputes or orders based on third-party funded status.

* * * *

As the landscape of third-party funding continues to evolve in the near future, parties, third-party funders and arbitration practitioners alike should also remain apprised of any developments in the state of rules to ensure that they can effectively meet new challenges as they arise.

Lawyer Who Negotiated Pharma Bro’s Wu-Tang Album Deal Says Buyer Will Go Public Soon

(Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice announced that it had sold off “Once Upon A Time In Shaolin,” the one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album originally purchased by notorious Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli. While the agreement shrouded the purchaser and sale price in mystery, the lawyer who negotiated the deal tells the press that the buyer… or buyers… will reveal themselves soon.

Peter Scoolidge, of Scoolidge, Peters, Rossatti & Fox LLP quarterbacked the deal for the buyers and told CNBC that, even though the deal contained a confidentiality clause, that won’t keep the public in the dark forever:

The lawyer also said Wednesday that the so-far-secret buyer of the album “is going to identify themselves in the future, I’d say in the next 30 to 60 days.”

Given his prior work representing the album’s co-producer Tarik “Cilvaringz” Azzougarh, CNBC raised speculation that someone connected with the Wu-Tang Clan may have purchased the album themselves. An interesting prospect, but a weird one if the whole point of the unicorn of an album was to let one fan appreciate it. Though Cilvaringz and RZA maintain a 50 percent share of the album, so they may just want to get the whole thing back under one roof before trying to sell it again.

“This was the most interesting deal I have ever worked on,” Scoolidge told CNBC.

I’d certainly hope so.

Mystery buyer of Wu-Tang Clan album forfeited by Martin Shkreli will reveal identity soon, lawyer says [CNBC]

Earlier: DOJ Sells Martin Shkreli’s $2M Wu-Tang Album

Addiction, Ethics, And Bravery

Simone Biles (Photo by Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil)

Well, yahoo (and I don’t mean THAT Yahoo). Finally, there’s conversation about the “addiction,” that the federal bench seems to have for Yale and Harvard graduates. These peeps are not the only fish in the sea for judicial appointments, and it’s well past time to look beyond these two elite law schools for federal judicial candidates who can do the jobs just as well if not better than those from the two schools. In many cases, regional and local candidates are way closer to the communities that they hail from and are better able to understand them. How about some academic diversity on the federal bench? Sounds like a plan to me.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion require that judicial appointments are more than just rubber stamps from those elite schools that seem to have the lock on appointments to the federal bench. Not everyone has the academic credentials, the recommendations, the scholarships, or the deep pockets to go to these schools. And I wonder how many graduates of those schools, along with other elite schools, who go on to Biglaw careers, find themselves miserable and ditch those careers for something else. I can think of more than just a few, but I’m not saying.

Not everyone can afford to go to an elite law school. Not everyone can juggle the three years with a job to pay the bills. Not everyone can balance the needs of law school studying with family responsibilities. But those who attend nonelite law schools are just as qualified as those who have that pedigree from Harvard or Yale. I’ve always thought that pedigree is for dogs. Isn’t there a dog food by that name?

Bravo to United States District Judge Michael McShane of the District of Oregon who testified before the House Judiciary Committee and used the term “addicted” to refer to the preference toward Harvard and Yale lawyers for bench appointments. So, how to withdraw from that “addiction?” Begin at the beginning: “making law school admissions less homogeneous, helping students from regional law schools get clerkships and making the [judicial] nomination process accessible to nontraditional candidates.” However, we all know how hard it is to overcome addiction. Withdrawal takes time, but it’s vital if the federal bench is to look at all like the population it is supposed to serve. Speaking publicly about the addiction is a good place to start. Now, where to go for rehab?

Just more evidence that an attorney responds on social media to an unhappy client at his peril. The scenario is all too familiar: unhappy client complains online about his attorney. Attorney responds (let the pissing contest begin) and reveals details about the client, including information in public records. The Oregon Supreme Court said that it’s not just privileged information that an attorney cannot disclose, but also information that would be embarrassing and detrimental to the client, even though such information is public record. No matter that such complaint may be embarrassing and detrimental to the lawyer. Rather than impose a suspension, the Oregon Supreme Court publicly reprimanded him.

To me, engaging in a war of words online is a waste of time. I don’t think a lawyer ever wins. Trying to defend himself or herself on social media runs up against the Streisand effect, which just further imprints the issue and makes it last longer. It’s like that mosquito bite. Leave it alone and it will go away, but if you scratch it, the itch lasts longer and so does the bite. It’s mosquito season, need I say more?

There is always something going on in Tinsel Town litigation. Most recently, the Second District Court of Appeal (note, the name of the court is not pluralized) here in Los Angeles disqualified a private retired judge from continuing to preside over custody issues between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt involving their six children. Essentially the appellate court benchslapped the private judge for not disqualifying himself due to a conflict of interest for work done on other matters involving Pitt’s lawyers. (Full disclosure: he and I are both on the same panel of neutrals here in Los Angeles, although I don’t think we have ever met.)

The appellate court chastised the retired judge for not disclosing the fact of his work on other cases involving Pitt’s counsel. I don’t know anything about the circumstances except what’s in the opinion. It’s worth reading to remind all of us, whether sitting judges, retired judges, attorneys, or neutrals, that it’s always better to overdisclose than not. You don’t get into trouble by doing that. The court said that the duty to disclose is an affirmative one, to be volunteered without prompting and not disclosed only in response to a question. The test, said the Court of Appeal, is the assessment of “how a reasonable person would view … [the private judge’s] ability to be impartial.”

Disclosure was the temporary judge’s responsibility, and that duty cannot be offloaded onto the provider or its staff, which is what he tried to do. Just as a lawyer cannot blame support staff for his error, the court said that the temporary judge must accept the responsibility for the ethical lapse.

And finally, kudos to Simone Biles, Naomi Osaka, and all the others who are confronting various mental health issues. It’s not easy being in the spotlight and discussing such personal matters. The more discussion, the less stigma. If Olympic athletes are courageous enough to step up, then why can’t lawyers? The profession would do well to model their bravery.


Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

No Legalese, Please

While I sincerely doubt the efficacy of legalese in private practice, there is certainly a toleration. I distinctly remember how the first partner I ever worked for inserted “hereforeto” in red ink to my brief, and I had to Google what it meant. (And if I were being honest, I would still have to Google it today.)

There is no such tolerance for legalese in-house, at least in my experience, whether you’re the business (usually mostly comprised of nonlawyers) or in-house counsel receiving legal advice from outside counsel. While I have never actually asked anyone why legalese is so hated in-house, I have a couple of ideas.

First, in the business world, where time is precious and businesses have access to so much data and information, legalese is simply inefficient. The most basic reaction is “ain’t nobody got time for that.” If people have to look up defined terms or take the time to interpret and translate what you mean — that unnecessary complexity actually cuts against clear communication. In the world of “what’s the bottom line” and “in a nutshell,” there is little room for legal treatises and memoranda with historical legislative history and deep analysis of case law.

Rather, the preference is for executive summaries, PowerPoint slides with minimal text, and high-level bullet points. Any time you can present information in one page — presenting pros and cons “at-a-glance” is ideal; bonus points if it can be boiled down to a handful of talking points. This is especially true the higher up on the organizational hierarchy your business client is.

While in-house counsel are obviously lawyers and can understand legalese, we still prefer plain English. It’s such a time suck to have to read an in-depth legal memo, pull out the most important points, and translate the legalese into plain English in an acceptable format for business clients. As I noted in a previous blog on how to stand out as outside counsel, advising in Plain English will set you apart from other outside counsel.

Second, my guess for why legalese is so unwelcome in-house is that legalese can have the detrimental effect of making others feel inferior — or just as bad or worse — make others feel like you intentionally want them to feel inferior (or make yourself superior or sound smarter). Even if it doesn’t have that actual effect on everyone or anyone, it can still create an unnecessary barrier to building trust and rapport with clients and colleagues.

Finally, while this tip is less about legalese and more about style of giving advice, it’s definitely worth sharing. This may be subjective to the type of company, but in my experience, lawyers who “waffle” aren’t as respected, especially as in-house counsel. Yes, our clients want us to research and analyze the law to help provide pros and cons — but our real value to the business is our judgment and providing a legal recommendation. What is not helpful is to only provide pros and cons and analysis — and then stepping back and distancing yourself from a decision instead of being an advisor. It’s also important to consider practical implications and actual risks and possible mitigation of those risks instead of simply playing the role of issue-spotter and “bursting business bubbles.” Along the same line, avoid the other end of the spectrum, which is being seen as a pushover, without a substantive opinion. Both the language you use and the way you support clients as a legal advisor are important considerations when you’re in-house.


Meyling “Mey” Ly Ortiz is in-house at Toyota Motor North America. Her passions include mentoring, championing belonging, and a personal blog: TheMeybe.com. At home, you can find her doing her best to be a “fun” mom to a toddler and preschooler and chasing her best self on her Peloton. You can follow her on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/meybe/). And you knew this was coming: her opinions are hers alone.

Robinhood Has A Couple Of Teensy Things To Get Off Its Chest Before Tomorrow’s IPO

You may have heard that a trading app called Robinhood is going public tomorrow. If you haven’t, you should know it’s kind of a big deal. It is the favored platform of Millennials and other stock market mutineers. It is going to revolutionize both the way IPOs are done and the cryptocurrency markets, the latter eventually. It’s done quite well for itself—well enough to perhaps earn a $35 billion valuation—even if more than four-fifths of its revenue is currently in the regulatory crosshairs. Oh, and speaking of regulatory crosshairs, if you’re aiming to spend $38 to $42 or more depending on how generous a bump the degenerates provide to get in on the meme stock to end all meme stocks, there are a couple of things you should probably know.

Morning Docket: 07.29.21

(Photo by Alex Caparros/Getty Images)

* Pelosi says that Biden doesn’t have the power to cancel student loan debt. Cups of the rose… [New York Post]

* LA opting to use zoning to address homelessness. Maybe one day we’ll look at the data and just give them homes. C’est la vie. [CBS Local]

* The Crow are suing the Bureau of Indian Affairs for excessive use of force during a traffic stop. Hoping for justice. [Native News Online]

* Judge overrules prosecutor and finds probable cause to charge a cop with homicide. Maybe judges are the backbone of the profession. [NBC News]

* Despite being faced with Delta, these states cannot mandate face masks. [Forbes]


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. Before that, he wrote columns for an online magazine named The Muse Collaborative under the pen name Knehmo. He endured the great state of 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 cwilliams@abovethelaw.com.

Battle for topmost army post escalates ahead of 2023 polls – The Zimbabwean

BERNARD MPOFU

Military sources say even though Sigauke is not well, Mnangagwa wants him ahead of Rujege. Politics looks certain to trump professional military considerations in the process in this case.

Zimbabwe’s past critical elections were always manipulated by the military, interfering with the process behind the scenes or directly with boots on the ground to bring force to bear on the outcome.

So whoever becomes the ZNA commander will have a serious impact on Zimbabwe’s politics and the 2023 elections outcome — essentially on the power matrix.

Military sources told The NewsHawks — the country’s leading investigative journalism network – that whereas Rugeje is the overwhelming favourite for Chiwenga to take over as ZNA commander, Sigauke is the first choice for Mnangagwa.

“Given that this is a critical position in both military and political strategic terms in the Zimbabwean context, two names stand out among others: Rugeje who is supposed to take over all things being equal given his qualifications and experience, and Sigauke, the well-positioned President’s man,” a military source said.

“Politics aside, Rugeje is supposed to be the next ZNA commander, but Mnangagwa doesn’t like him because he is Chiwenga’s political ally. Mnangagwa prefers Sigauke — and well Sigauke is most likely to take over – in fact he will take over barring eleventh hour changes. It’s already decided. If the late Major-General Trust Mugoba was alive; remember he died while on an African Union mission, he would as their peer take over.”

Given their ongoing political brinkmanship, Mnangagwa and Chiwenga are on a renewed collision course over the appointment, with Rugeje — who played a critical role in Mnangagwa’s coup ascendancy in November 2017 — at the centre of the row and the attendant power struggle.

Military sources said some of those well-positioned to occupy the ZNA top post which fell vacant following the death of Chimonyo on 8 July if things were professionally managed, include Major-Generals Paul Chima and Hlanganani Dube.

“Chima and Dube should have had a chance, but you know these Zimbabwean things when it comes to power and positions of influence, they are always mostly unprofessional and ugly,” a military source said.

“Chima will be excluded on subtly ethnic and xenophobic grounds; Dube won’t make it on ethnic considerations, but also because he is former Zpra. Already, the Air Force of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe Defence Forces commanders, Elson Moyo and Philip Valerio Sibanda respectively, are Zipra, but ethnically they are actually the President’s tribesmen. This distortion serves Mnangagwa’s political and ethnic designs, but I don’t think we should still have that sort of thing in this country. But then again, partly because of that the new ZNA commander will be Zanla. The bigger picture is power retention and consolidation. These are the underlying currents — meritocracy is always sacrificed in the process — in our rotten body politic and state institutions, including the security forces, if you go deep down into the political gutter — it’s tragic, but real.”

The other candidates — unlikely as they are — include Major-General John Chris Mupande, a Chiwenga ally, retired Lieutenant-General Martin Chedondo, currently ambassador to China, and Major-General Thomas Moyo, Military Intelligence Directorate commander. His predecessor Major-General Mike Nicholas Sango, ambassador to Russia, has been mentioned.

After taking over in 2017, Mnangagwa purged the police, intelligence and army ranks in a sweeping move to clear and control the security forces. Soon after the coup in 2017, Mnangagwa removed six Brigadier-Generals, who became Major-Generals upon retirement, from active service.

These included Godfrey Chanakira, Thando Madzvamuse, Evaristo Dzihwema, Chanceller Diye, Gerald Gwinji and Sango.

Later, he purged Major-Generals Chedondo, Douglas Nyikayaramba, Anselem Sanyatwe and Air Vice-Marshal Shebba Shumbayaonda. The removed commanders were made ambassadors or sent home.

Military sources told The NewsHawks this week that the issue of the appointment of the next ZNA commander is looming large in the corridors of power amid resurgent infighting between the two leaders.

“This is a big issue because the President and his deputy have different political agendas on who should replace Chimonyo,” a military source said.

“The President took a bit of time searching among the serving and retired senior commanders for the most suitable candidate; Sigauke is his choice, while Chiwenga is dead set on ensuring Rugeje gets the job. Although it is the commander-in-chief who has the final say, the process is consultative, hence clashing designs and manoeuvres.

“The new commander is supposed to have been appointed by the time Zimbabwe commemorates Heroes and Defences Forces holidays on 9 August and 10 August respectively. It’s raising tensions between them because it is a critical appointment with implications for power dynamics and how the unresolved leadership issue between them will be settled.”

Post published in: Featured

Covid-19 militates against census preparations – The Zimbabwean

The country remains under level 4 Covid-19-induced lockdown with gatherings save for funerals banned while business hours have since been cut short as part of a cocktail of measures by the government to curb the spread of the pandemic.

The 2022 Population and Housing Census enumeration is scheduled to run from 21 to 30 April 2022.

“Government wishes to inform the nation that 60 per cent of the country has been mapped although the COVID-19 outbreak is militating against progress,” said Mutsvangwa during a post-cabinet briefing Tuesday.

“The Bulawayo Metropolitan Province was completed, as well as 20 districts spread across the country’s provinces. The nation is informed that the preparations for the 2022 Population and Housing Census are being coordinated by the National Census Committee, which will be assisted by the Provincial and District Census Committees. The Provincial and District Census Committees will be constituted by 30 September 2021.”

Mutsvangwa explained that the Cabinet adopted the 2022 Population and Housing Census Timelines, which are disaggregated into Pre-Enumeration, Enumeration and Post Enumeration Phases.

“The Pre-Enumeration phase which started on 21 Nov 2019 will run until 17 April 2022, and has two major activities, namely: the Census Field Mapping Exercise (to be completed by 21 January 2022) and the Pilot Census (to be completed by 27 November 2021),” she said.

“The Enumeration Phase is scheduled for 21 to 30 April 2022. The post enumeration will be completed by 31 August 2022.”

She said activities during the post enumeration phase include the publication of the preliminary census results by 1 August, 2022; data analysis, processing and dissemination; post enumeration survey; evaluation of the census in terms of content and coverage errors; and recovery of census equipment and materials.

Zimbabwe holds a census every 10 years and the next year exercise is crucial as it precedes the 2023 harmonised elections.

Half of Zimbabweans faced extreme poverty in 2020 due to Covid-19: Survey – The Zimbabwean

According to the Rapid Poverty Incomes Consumption and Expenditure Surveys (PICES) Monitoring Telephone survey, the extreme poverty rate was already high at 38 percent in 2019.

“Extreme poverty rate was estimated to have reached 49 percent in 2020, according to the Rapid PICES second round survey,” said the Rapid PICES survey conducted by Zimbabwe Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT), together with the World Bank and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), which designed a high-frequency telephone survey of households to measure the socio-economic impacts of Covid-19 in Zimbabwe.

This increase, according to the survey, “was driven by an increase in price of food and other basic necessities, income loss due to the economic contraction caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and a drop in agricultural production because of poor rains.”

“Although, poverty was in general much lower in urban areas, urban poverty has risen faster than rural poverty in relative terms since 2017,” said the survey that sampled 1 235 households from all ten provinces of Zimbabwe for the Round three study conducted from December 15, 2020, to March 10, 2021.

The findings are compared to results from the first round conducted from July 6 to 24, 2020 where 1 747 households were sampled and round two from August 24 to September 23, 2020, were 1 639 households were contacted.

This grim reading of Zimbabwe’s economic prospects comes as the government claims it recorded a  whopping ZWL$9.8 billion surplus during the first quarter of 2021, with Finance and Economic Development Minister, Professor Mthuli Ncube, maintaining the economy has grown.

However, the reality on the ground shows the struggles that families have to endure to make ends meet or put food on the table.

According to the survey, when it came to access to basic food necessities, the capacity to buy food improved between July 2020 and March 2021 but it remains low, especially among rural households

“The share of households that were able to buy basic food items increased noticeably from round three after a more modest positive change between rounds one and two.

“The proportion of households that were able to buy maize meal rose from 43 to 56 percent, that for cooking oil rose from 46 to 54 percent, while that for chicken rose from 18 to 25 percent for round two and round three, respectively,” said the survey.

“The third round survey also indicated an increased share of households that attempted to buy these basic goods nationally in both rural and urban areas. As expected, in all rounds, the proportion of households that were able to buy basic food items was significantly higher in urban than rural areas.”

The Rapid PICES survey was funded by the Zimbabwe Reconstruction Fund (ZIMREF) and UNICEF.