Category: News Feeds

Tiffany Trump, a newly minted Georgetown Law graduate, appeared at the Republican National Convention last night. Back in May, when we said we couldn’t wait to see what Tiffany would do next, we certainly didn’t think it would be attacking the media, but here we are.

Before she dipped her well-heeled feet into the propaganda wading pool, Tiffany discussed what it was like to get her degree during these unprecedented COVID times:

Like so many students across the world, I graduated from law school during the pandemic. Our generation is unified in facing the future in uncertain times. And many of us are considering what kind of country we want to live in. As a recent graduate, I can relate to so many of you who might be looking for a job.

She can relate to people looking for a job? Did Tiffany Trump graduate from Georgetown Law without one? That seems pretty hard to believe, but hey, anything is possible during a pandemic. She’s the only Trump child who hasn’t taken a job at the White House or become a talking head for the campaign, so perhaps there’s hope yet for her future employment prospects.

Best of luck in your job search, Tiffany.

---

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.

Well, the shoe we’ve been waiting to drop for two years has finally hit the ground. Way back in 2018, Above the Law told you about the internal investigation that Yale Law School was conducting on celebrity law professor Jed Rubenfeld based on allegations of harassment and inappropriate behavior. It seems YLS has, at long last, come to a conclusion on the allegations.

As reported by New York Magazine, faculty received word earlier this week that Professor Jed Rubenfeld “will leave his position as a member of the YLS faculty for a two-year period, effective immediately,” and that upon his return, Rubenfeld cannot teach “small group or required courses. He will be restricted in social gatherings with students.”

The investigation reportedly found a disturbing pattern:

Three people familiar with the investigation that led to Rubenfeld’s suspension said it stemmed from the university finding a pattern of sexual harassment of several students. The allegations, which spanned decades, included verbal harassment, unwanted touching, and attempted kissing, both in the classroom and at parties at Rubenfeld’s home.

As with any behavior that has allegedly spanned decades, there’ve been reports that Rubenfeld’s behavior towards women was an “open secret” within the Yale Law community. The allegations of “boundary crossing” have been repeated to us via anonymous emails, texts, and DMs from alumni that are known to us but do not want to go on the record.

Rubenfeld made extensive comments to New York Magazine about his suspension:

In a phone conversation Tuesday, Rubenfeld told me, “I absolutely, unequivocally, 100 percent deny that I ever sexually harassed anyone, whether verbally or otherwise. Yes, I’ve said stupid things that I regret over the course of my 30 years as professor, and no professor who’s taught as long as I have that I know doesn’t have things that they regret that they said.”

He added, “Ironically, I have written about the unreliability of the campus Title IX procedures. I never expected to go through one of them myself.”
In 2014, for example, Rubenfeld wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that said that the university that puts in place affirmative-consent standards “encourages people to think of themselves as sexual assault victims when there was no assault” and that it is “illogical” to claim “intercourse with someone ‘under the influence’ of alcohol is always rape.”

Rubenfeld said Tuesday, “I think subsequent to me having written some controversial articles about sexual assault, that I became a target of people making false allegations against me.” Who was making these false allegations, exactly? “I don’t know,” Rubenfeld said, “because of confidentiality. Identities were not revealed to me.”

Except, as NY Mag notes, that part about not knowing the identities of his accusers isn’t true. Yale policy explicitly requires complainants identities be revealed. And one of the complainants told NY Mag exactly that:

“License to write about sexual harassment is not license to sexually harass,” [an accuser told New York Magazine]. “I reported because I was sexually harassed. Now he’s being dishonest about even this aspect of the Title IX process. For example, as Yale’s policy requires, I identified myself to him. I had to, and I did so at considerable risk given his influence in the legal community.”

Rubenfeld is married to fellow YLS professor and Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, author, Amy Chua. Chua, an influential member of the YLS clerkship committee, and Rubenefeld reportedly told a number of women Yale Law students that Judge Brett Kavanaugh prefers clerks with “a certain look.” And Chua reportedly said it’s “no accident” that Kavanaugh’s clerks “look like models.” Chua has denied those allegations.

YLS Dean Heather Gerken said in a message to the law school community:

 “While we cannot comment on the existence of investigations or complaints, the Law School and the University thoroughly investigate all complaints regarding violations of University rules and the University adjudicates them whenever it is appropriate to do so.” She added, “As Dean, I take this responsibility extraordinarily seriously.”

---

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).

In 2002, Brian Potts, then a law student at Vermont Law School, wrote to Perkins Coie, an Am Law 100 law firm, inquiring about a job. The firm responded by mail politely informing him that no positions were available.

Almost 20 years later, he is now a partner at Perkins Coie’s Madison, Wisconsin, office.

But he kept that rejection letter. Last month, he posted a copy of it on LinkedIn with the classic words, “Law Students: If at first you don’t succeed, try try again.”

His post went viral. It has been viewed more than 3.5 million times and received over 48,000 positive responses. Many people have reached out to him requesting advice, and as a result, he is currently booked out for at least a month speaking with law students and recent graduates.

I reached out to Brian to learn more about his story. Here are his answers to my questions.

So what did you do after getting the rejection letter?

During my second year, I applied to every AmLaw 100 firm (and many AmLaw 200 firms) and got form rejection letters from all of them (including the one from Perkins). I kept them to motivate myself. I also applied to about 15 or 20 firms in the Kentucky area (where I’m from), and the only summer associate job I was offered was at the firm where my step-grandfather was a partner in Lexington, Kentucky.

I did very well during my summer associate gig, and they made me an offer. I then reapplied to dozens of top firms with an offer in hand and ended up getting an interview with only one firm but not an offer (it was not an AmLaw firm, but a great environmental boutique in D.C.).  So, I went to Kentucky after law school to begin my career.

A year in, I decided to go to Berkeley to get an LL.M — mostly as a way to get Berkeley’s name on my resume. During my year at Berkeley, I published an article in the Harvard Environmental Law Review (which was a huge deal — at least to me). I also got all As.

Even with Berkeley and the publication on my resume, when I reapplied to all of the top AmLaw firms in Chicago and Madison, I again got form rejection letters from all of them except from Baker MacKenzie in Chicago. I ended up interviewing at Baker but didn’t get an offer. I did, however, land an associate offer from a well-respected midlevel firm in Madison, which is where my wife is from. So, we moved to Madison.

When did you start getting attention from a major law firm?

A year later, a recruiter working for Foley & Lardner called me about an associate position in their Madison office. Although I was happy where I was, it was an opportunity I couldn’t pass up. They were looking for a midlevel environmental associate with three to five years of experience. I was then a third-year so I perfectly fit the bill. And I “clicked” with the partners at Foley who I interviewed with.

So how did you like it at Foley?

I liked it. I ended up doing incredibly well at Foley; I made partner in the shortest time period possible at age 32.

How did you make partner in such a short period of time?

Hard work and luck. I met my hours requirements every year; and I treated the partners like I would treat my clients. Basically, I did whatever needed to be done to make the partners’ lives easier. And because the partners trusted me, I started to get a lot of client interaction. Eventually clients started to notice and appreciate my work. But there’s no doubt that I was also a bit lucky on the business development front. I made friends in town who trusted me, and some of them ended up in jobs where they could refer business to me.

When you transferred to an AmLaw 100 firm, were there any differences in the office culture and expectations from you?

Honestly, the biggest difference was in the dollar value of the matters I got to work on. The hours requirements and day-to-day expectations were pretty similar.

Describe your transition to Perkins Coie. 

I lateraled to Perkins three and a half years ago because of a client conflict. It was nerve racking. But all of my major clients came with me. Things are going extremely well in my practice now. Our group in Madison has grown from three to six attorneys (and we have a new associate joining this fall). I was also recently made co-chair of the firm’s Energy Industry Group.

During your career, what do you think helped you to get noticed?

I’ve tried to distinguish myself since law school by writing legal articles and op-eds. I also now teach a class on Renewable Energy Development & Project Finance at my alma mater, Vermont Law School. And I’ve founded two startup companies, including inventing the LegalBoard, the first and only keyboard for lawyers (which Above The Law has covered extensively).

There are many law students and young lawyers who want to emulate your accomplishment. What steps should they take now and later to maximize their chances of being hired?  

Spend an inordinate amount of time working on your writing (whether you are an excellent writer or not) and studying your area of the law. Work hard. And don’t panic if you haven’t landed your dream job yet. It may be hard to imagine now — but you will be your most marketable three to five years after starting to practice law. So, bide your time.

Also, email me. I recently asked for mentoring help on LinkedIn (since I’ve been inundated with requests for advice). More than 70 accomplished lawyers have already contacted me with offers to help. Together we are starting the LinkedIn Legal Mentor Network. Law students and recent grads can just email me, and I’ll refer them to a few contacts who have aligning interests from the network.

I want to thank Brian Potts for his time and for his offering to help young lawyers at a very difficult time. If you have a unique success story you want to share, please reach out to me.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

This website has discussed in many prior articles how law schools do little to prepare students for careers as practicing attorneys. Indeed, most of us know how law schools usually just teach skills such as analyzing cases and making arguments rather than the black letter principles that will be helpful in practice. Many law schools tell students that they will learn how to be a practicing attorney during their first job after law school, but if students are paying a boatload of money to earn a JD, it seems only fair that they learn some of that knowledge in school. One reason why law schools do not teach students how to be practicing attorneys is because many law professors have little experience in the practice of law or practiced as attorneys years ago. However, if law professors were required to have more practical experience, perhaps they could more effectively train students to become practicing lawyers when they graduate from law school.

When I was a law student, very few of my full-time professors had significant practical experience. Most had clerked for a federal judge, done a few years in Biglaw, and then went straight into academia. This lack of practical experience impacted many classes. My full-time law professors had very few practical tips to provide in their lectures, likely because they did not know how to handle legal matters in the real world. Whenever someone would ask a question of full-time law professors that related to a practical legal issue, the professors would usually hedge their statements or relate that students will learn answers to such questions in practice. That made my law school experience less meaningful, since I kept learning the same case-method skills in class over three years rather than collecting the practical knowledge that would be helpful in practice.

Some law professors may claim it is not their job to provide practical advice to students. Indeed, many law professors may point to their scholarship, including articles, presentations, seminars, and the like as their primary academic output. However, law students are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to earn a law degree in order to enjoy the benefits of a professor’s scholarship. Rather, the students are usually attending law school as a steppingstone to enter the legal profession. This would be made much easier if law professors could provide practical advice to students so that law school graduates are better able to face the challenges faced by the practice of law.

In addition, legal scholarship does not have much of an impact on the legal profession. It is very rare to see a scholarly article cited by most state or federal judges outside of some appellate opinions, so scholarship does not ordinarily have an impact on the judiciary in run-of-the-mill matters. Many journals (and there are hundreds of law journals across the country) are not periodically read by individuals within the legal profession. In many respects, the main outcome of legal scholarship is to promote the careers of law professors, and to give scholars credentials that they can use to earn tenure, secure different positions, and advance in their careers. Naturally, a handful of academics and journals do have a significant impact on the legal profession, but the vast majority of scholarship is not impactful and should not be considered the most valuable output of law professors.

I previously wrote an article about how adjunct professors can enrich the law school experience, since many adjunct professors are practicing attorneys who can provide practical advice in their lectures. Indeed, I had the benefit of learning from some great adjunct professors as a law student, who would literally travel to the law school from their law offices and impart practical advice in their lectures. I am not saying that full-time law professors should be entirely replaced with adjunct professors. Adjunct professors are often extremely difficult to hunt down for recommendations, questions, and feedback, which makes sense given the small sum of money they typically earn to teach, and their other obligations. In addition, adjunct professors are less likely to be involved with campus activities, which can be an enriching part of being a law student.

However, there is no reason why law schools should not require law professor candidates to have more practical experience, or at least give more preference to individuals who have such experience. Law professors do not even need to have substantial practical experience to learn much of the hands-on background they should have in a given area of law. Depending on the subject, law professors could likely benefit from as little as five to seven years of practical experience, and this could greatly enhance the instruction they provide to students.

Let me just say emphatically that I have a lot of respect for law professors, and some of my own law professors had a profound impact on me. In addition, law professors have been very supportive of my blogging over the years, and I have had some enriching correspondences with law professors over time. I hope that law professors and others will communicate with me about this article and let me know about any perspectives I may have missed. In addition, some law schools have solid clinical programs that can provide invaluable practical training to students. Nevertheless, if law schools want to better prepare their students to enter the practice of law, they should hire law professors that have more practical experience.

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

The crux of the problem for the Pennsylvania Board of Bar Examiners in fending off the emergency diploma privilege petition filed by Temple Law Emeritus Professor Louis M. Natali Jr. and Law Students for Equitable Responses to COVID-19 — arguing that the planned online exam violates a provision of the Pennsylvania constitution requiring a heightened standard for licensure tests — can be summed up in a single sentence in the response filed by the examiners yesterday:

This argument is premised almost entirely upon the supposed shortcomings of the remote procedure that will be used for the October exam and not on the efficacy of generally using an examination as a tool for measuring competency.

The problem for the examiners is that this is entirely true, but this is the strength of the petition, not its weakness.

The original petition laid out the NCBE’s repeated claims that an online bar exam amounts to no competency exam at all. Whether or not that’s true, it leaves the Pennsylvania bar examiners in a pickle as they have exactly zilch defense of their mission beyond the word of the NCBE and the NCBE is already throwing them under the bus. Trying to shift this back to the general exam is just a Jedi mind trick, but unfortunately for them the online exam is the precise droid we’re looking for.

In perhaps the saddest point of the response, the examiners claim that if the petitioners are correct that the exam fails to meet the heightened standard required by the state constitution, “the remedy would be a detailed study” — an implicit admission that the examiners really have nothing backing their cause but the arguably self-serving studies put out by the NCBE. Too bad the remedy for constitutional violations is not “go ahead until we can hear from a committee.”

With a heightened standard for allowing an exam to interfere with a citizen’s chosen profession, the burden is upon the bar examiners to prove that the online exam meets the — pun intended — high bar that the court has previously found that the in-person bar exam cleared.

Gamely, the bar examiners try to gloss over this problem by indicating that they will, you know, mostly give the same exam they planned to give in-person. It’s a response that’s all well and good except when you remember that the people who make the test that Pennsylvania claims is so great have gone on record that online exams aren’t any good creating a problem that the bar examiners just can’t get around.

Full credit to the attorneys behind this response, as they recognize — even as they elide — this problem and mention as an aside that they’ve engaged their own private psychometrician to tell them “Pennsylvania’s system is more reliable than the ‘half exam’ used in other jurisdictions,” a conclusion that is noticeably not the same as “equal to the existing bar exam” which is the burden upon the bar examiners. Beyond that, the response outlines a spirited defense of ExamSoft’s Michigan debacle and a litany of accommodations that Pennsylvania has instituted to mitigate common problems with online exams and the bar examiners deserve credit for doing a much better job of this than most states.

Alas, “E for effort” isn’t the applicable standard.

And so the examiners lean on the standard bar exam bromides that offer no substantive insight but have proven shockingly successful in quelling the intellectual rigor of jurists across the country.

This is no small issue; on the July 2019 test, for example, the passage rate for first time test takers was 80.60 per cent.

At this point no one should need reminding that despite branding itself as a “minimum competency” test, passing the bar exam is not like passing the driving test. Passing scores on bar exams are set by a number of factors up to and including the existing bar’s protectionist interest in limiting admission of new competition, but it’s not actually controversial to say that an overriding factor is setting the score for the purpose of failing between 15-25 percent of examinees. It’s self-justifying: the bar exam is important because we fail 20 percent of examinees and we fail 20 percent of examinees to prove how important the bar exam is.

In an actual competency test, it would be possible for 100 percent of takers to pass the test, that this is impossible of a bar exam is a damning indictment of its “minimum competency” claims.

Most states have declined to follow this path. As the Supreme Court of Ohio recently stated in rejecting a petition seeking a diploma privilege:

The court agrees with our colleagues in other jurisdictions who have recently denied similar petitions. It is the court’s obligation to protect the public and the integrity of the profession through oversight of the profession and its practitioners. The purpose of the bar examination is to ensure minimum competence of those admitted to the practice of law. With the aforementioned orders, the court has taken steps to minimize the concerns raised by the petition while continuing to carry out its responsibility to promote the integrity of the legal profession.

A more empty set of words would be difficult to find. “The court’s obligation to protect the public and the integrity of the profession through oversight of the profession and its practitioners,” isn’t the question, the question is why does this exam — especially this exam in a plague-ridden online format — fulfill that obligation?

Is there evidence that bar exam passage prevents integrity problems among the local bar? Nope. Is the bar exam a minimum competency test? No, we already addressed that above. Is there evidence that a one-time examination constitutes meaningful oversight of a career? We’ve actually got some research on how that could be handled better by a number of alternative procedures. Is the court willing to formally state that it believes accredited law schools are professionally worthless? Because if not, what’s the point of this test and if so, shouldn’t raising those standards be the primary concern of the court rather than trying to square-peg-round-hole a half-measure test upon a bunch of people?

Citing the West Wing approvingly requires mainlining grains of salt and forgetting 20 years of political reality, but here’s my question to all these courts: “What are the next 10 words of your answer?” Because if anyone is willing to get past “we need it for public protection and maintaining professional integrity,” it would help a lot.

(Response attached on the next page…)

Earlier: New Petition Uses NCBE’s Own Logic To Support Diploma Privilege Bid

---

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

Carl Icahn and Dan Loeb see eye-to-eye on lots of things, but malls aren’t among them. While Danny Boy has only the fondest memories of a ‘70s California mallrat childhood, Icahn never had much use for the retail emporia other than to make money on their downfall. And boy, has this beautiful trade proven worth its weight in all the gold you could store in all of the empty Spencer’s Gifts across the land. Indeed, it’s been absolutely the best part of a pretty awesome global pandemic for good old Uncle Carl.

* Halle Berry wishes to act as her own lawyer in her divorce against Olivier Martinez. Hope it doesn’t turn out badly like Catwoman… [Fox News]

* The top lawyer at ICE will become the new leader of the agency. [CNN]

* The Attorney General of Alaska has resigned after allegedly inappropriate text messages he sent to a younger female state employee surfaced. [NBC News]

* A new lawsuit alleges that the NFL’s concussion settlement discriminates against black players. [Wall Street Journal]

* The family of a woman found alive at a funeral home after being declared dead has hired a lawyer to investigate possible negligence. Maybe she was just a heavy sleeper? [Guardian]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

In a letter dated 25 August 2020 and addressed to Mtetwa by Assistant Commissioner W. Risiro, the Acting Director-Legal Services, ZPCS said their interpretation of the order by Magistrate Ngoni Nduna to disqualify her from representing Chin’ono differed from hers.

Ass. Com Risiro said whilst the order by the Magistrate still stands, Mtetwa remains barred from consulting with Chin’ono at Chikurubi Maximum.

He wrote:

RE: BARRING OF MRS B. MTETWA FROM SEEING HOPEWELL CHIN’ONO AT CHIKURUBI MAXIMUM PRISON

Reference is made to the above subject matter and to your letter addressed to the Commissioner-General of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Service dated 25 August 2020.

The Order that was made by Magistrate Nduna in paragraph 1 reads “That the disqualification of Ms Beatrice Mtetwa as a counsel participating in this matter is hereby granted as prayed for by the state”.

Your interpretation of the order is obviously different from that of the ZPCS. We are not aware of the order by the Magistrate having been set aside or let alone having been challenged. Our interpretation as ZPCS is that you were disqualified as a counsel participating in the matter before the Magistrate.

We, therefore, do not agree with your interpretation that the order does not bar you from representing Mr Chin’ono or from being part of the legal team representing him.

We do not understand participating in a case being only limited to appearance before the Magistrate but also consultations with the client in preparation of the case.

Whether the order by the Magistrate is competent or not is something else. The position of the ZPCS is that whilst the order by the Magistrate still stands you remain barred from consulting with Mr Hopewell Chin’ono at Chikurubi Maximum.

All the visits you have had with him were to do with lawyer and client relationship with him such as his bail applications.

We are not aware of any other matters pending in which you represent him. For the record, any other lawyer is free to visit and consult with him subject to the terms of Justice Charewa’s order in case number HC4248/20.

Any other social visits shall be in terms of the COVID-19 guidelines limiting visits to prisons.

Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services’ letter:

Post published in: Featured

George Mutimbanyoka, the officer in charge of Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison, allegedly kept Sikhala handcuffed and in leg irons for a whole day on Sunday, a day after he was taken to the prison accused of inciting public violence.

Sikhala’s lawyers are arguing against his placement on remand and want the charges thrown out. Harare magistrate Lanzini Ncube is hearing arguments which continued on Tuesday.

The Zengeza West MP’s lawyer Harrison Nkomo told Ncube: “He was advised that he (Sikhala) wanted to be the president of this country which is undesirable. He was told that he shall die in this prison and was asked to provide a mobile number for his next of kin to be advised when he dies.”

Mutimbanyoka allegedly instructed a junior officer, one Murima, to handcuff Sikhala for an entire day. He was also in leg irons for the entire day on August 23.

“This was despite that he is not a D Class inmate but the officer in charge condemned him and instructed his juniors to detain him in D Class which is for condemned prisoners. He was told by fellow inmates in D Class that seven of them had tested positive to Covid-19 the previous day. On Sunday, four others tested positive with the deadly virus,” Nkomo added.

Sikhala was not provided with protective clothing nor sanitised, the court heard.

“Our client no longer feels safe to be detained at Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison. He is willing to stay at any other prison and also we apply that the allegations to be investigated,” the lawyer added.

Nkomo also asked the court to order the fumigation of cells and also that PPE be availed for Sikhala and other inmates in the cell.

The state prosecutor Garudzo Ziyadhuma said they were hearing of the concerns for the first time, and they would submit a report after carrying out investigations.

The magistrate ordered that investigations “must be done as soon as possible.”

Challenging placement on remand, Jeremiah Bamu, one of Sikhala’s lawyers, said the politician had not made any statement with potential to incite violence.

He said information on the warned and cautioned statement was different from that on the charge sheet.

“Allegations were cherry picked from the warned and cautioned statement,” said Bamu.

Bamu said charges which Sikhala is facing could be based on speculation as he was not shown any videos nor given a chance to listen to any audios which prosecutors said gave rise to the charges.

Ziyadhuma said the investigating officer would be called to testify on Tuesday on the nature of the charges.

Zimbabwe’s courts have been hearing cases of lawyers, nurses, journalists and politicians who are among scores arrested for criticising the government, assisting activists or demanding better working conditions.

Sikhala is one of the latest arrested after being in hiding for weeks following police accusations that he was mobilising anti-government protests. Another opposition legislator, Prince Dubeko Dube, has been charged with inciting violence after he gave employees of a supermarket two face masks with the hashtag “#ZanuPFMustGo.”

The latest arrests came as journalist Hopewell Chin’ono and opposition politician and government critic, Jacob Ngarivhume, were denied bail for a third time since being arrested for agitating for protests.

The demonstrations were banned because of Zimbabwe’s anti-coronavirus measures.

Ngarivhume, the leader of Transform Zimbabwe, and Chin’ono have been in jail since July 20 on charges of inciting public violence.

More than a dozen demonstrators who tried to protest, were detained from the streets. They were charged with inciting violence and then freed on bail.

Post published in: Featured

ZENGEZA West constituency legislator Hon. Job Sikhala on Monday 24
August 2020 laid bare the grim conditions prevailing at Chikurubi
Maximum Security Prison where he alleged that prisoners were dying
after contracting coronavirus while detained at the notorious prison.

Through his lawyers Jeremiah Bamu, Advocate Eric Matinenga and
Harrison Nkomo of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Hon. Sikhala, who
was arrested by Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) members on Friday 21
August 2020 and charged with incitement to commit public violence,
told Magistrate Lazini Ncube that some inmates were dying in prison
after contracting coronavirus.

Hon. Sikhala, who is detained in the D class section at Chikurubi
Maximum Security Prison, which is reserved for some convicted people
currently serving their prison sentences, protested that prison guards
were ill-treating him and singled out two officers namely George
Mutimbanyoka, the Officer In Charge of Chikurubi Maximum Security
Prison and a junior officer only identified as Murima who told him
that he will die in prison.

Mutimbanyoka, Hon. Sikhala said, had asked him to advise prison guards
about the identity of his next of kin so as to inform the person as he
would die while detained in prison.

The Zengeza West legislator said he was being detained while
handcuffed and in leg irons without personal protective equipment and
asked the court that he be detained elsewhere other than Chikurubi
Maximum Security Prison.

This ill-treatment by prison officers, Hon. Sikhala said, was a
transgression of his fundamental rights.

In response, Magistrate Ncube said the complaints by Sikhala were
serious as they affect every inmate’s health and ordered the state to
conduct investigations into the state of conditions at Chikurubi
Maximum Security Prison and to furnish the court with a report.

The 48 year-old Hon. Sikhala returns to court on Wednesday 26 August
2020 when Magistrate Ncube will hand down his ruling on his
application challenging his placement on remand. Through his
application, Hon. Sikhala is arguing that he did not commit an offence
warranting to be arrested and detained through recording and
circulating the alleged videos as he was exercising his constitutional
rights to freedom of expression and petition.

Hon. Sikhala was arrested on Friday 21 August 2020 and charged with
incitement to commit public violence as defined in section 187(1)(a)
as read with section 36(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and
Reform) Act.

He was also charged with incitement to commit public violence as
defined in section 187(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and
Reform) Act as read with section 36(1)(b) of the Criminal Law
(Codification and Reform) Act or alternatively incitement to
participate in a gathering with intent to promote public violence,
breaches of peace or bigotry as defined in section 37(1)(a) of the
Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

ZRP officers alleged that the Zengeza West constituency legislator
incited people between 1 March 2020 and 21 August 2020 to participate
in public demonstrations that would cause public violence and breach
of peace among people in Zimbabwe on 31 July 2020 and on 31 August
2020 by posting video clips with some inciting messages.

Meanwhile, Harare Magistrate Ngoni Nduna on Monday 24 August 2020
denied bail to freelance journalist Hopewell Chinóno, who has been in
detention since 20 July 2020 when he was arrested by ZRP members and
charged with inciting people to revolt against President Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s administration during some planned anti-government
protests.

ZRP members charged Chin’ono with incitement to participate in a
gathering with intent to promote public violence, breaches of peace or
bigotry as defined in section 187(1)(a) of the Criminal Law
(Codification and Reform) Act as read with section 37(1)(a)(i) of the
Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

ZRP members also pressed alternative charges of incitement to commit
public violence as defined in section 187(1)(a) as read with section
36(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

The law enforcement agents alleged that Chin’ono, who is represented
by Advocate Taona Nyamakura, Gift Mtisi and Douglas Coltart of ZLHR,
allegedly posted various messages on his Twitter account using the
handle @daddyhope between May 2020 and July 2020 calling upon
Zimbabweans across the country to engage in acts of public violence
against the government on 31 July 2020.

The journalist allegedly posted several messages on Twitter which
read; “@Ngarivhume and many others have come to put their hands up and
said they will lead anti-looting demo on 31 July”, “Zimbabwe will
never be free from looters through elections it is just a waste of
time” and “If you feel like shouting#zanuPFMustGo and Mnangagwa and
his regime has failed, how they will go will be determined by history
and yet Mnangagwa refuses change will come by any means.”

ZRP members alleged that by posting such messages Chin’ono intended to
disturb the peace, security or order of the public.

This is the third time that Chinóno has been denied bail after the
first two unsuccessful bids before Magistrate Nduna in July and before
High Court Judge Justice Tawanda Chitapi.

Besides Chinóno, Harare Magistrate Trynos Utahwashe on Friday 21
August 2020 denied bail for the third time to Transform Zimbabwe party
leader Jacob Ngarivhume, who has been in jail for more than one month
after he was arrested on 20 July 2020.

Magistrate Utahwashe said Ngarivhume, who is represented by Moses
Nkomo of ZLHR, cannot be freed on bail because he was a danger to the
public.

Ngarivhume was arrested by ZRP members on Monday 20 July 2020 and
charged with incitement to participate in a gathering with intent to
promote public violence, breaches of peace or bigotry as defined in
section 187(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act as
read with section 37(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and
Reform) Act. He was also charged with incitement to commit public
violence as defined in section 187(1)(a) as read with section 36(1)(a)
of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

Prosecutors alleged that Ngarivhume incited people to revolt against
President Mnangagwa’s administration during some planned
anti-government protests called for 31 July 2020.