Category: News Feeds

Maryland lawmakers have introduced legislation to do a little Capitol remodeling. Specifically, they’re hoping to swap out a bust adorning the old Supreme Court chamber where for the last 143 years, the state has been represented by Dred Scott author Chief Justice Roger Taney.

George Templeton Strong best summed up Taney, writing upon the occasion of his passing, “the Hon. old Roger B. Taney has earned the gratitude of his country by dying at last. Better late than never.” During the initial debate to get Taney’s bust into the Capitol building, a New Hampshire senator said that Taney “sank into his grave without giving a cheering word or a helping hand to the country he had vainly sought to place forever by judicial authority under the iron rule of the slave-masters.”

Yet Taney eventually got his bust and it’s managed to remain undisturbed as the world changed in fits and starts — and setbacks — for almost a century and a half. Even the Maryland statehouse quietly dumped their Taney tribute.

But now Maryland’s senators, with backing from the Democratic members of the Maryland House delegation, are proposing to junk the bust in favor of Baltimore native Thurgood Marshall.

If successful, the replacement would provide a fitting closure to the history of Maryland’s place in the old chamber. A jurist famed for his staunch defense of the system of slavery replaced by the nation’s first justice descended from slaves. Thurgood Marshall’s legacy as an attorney, Johnson administration official, and Supreme Court justice deserve tribute in the Capitol regardless, but to bring that tribute at the symbolic expense of a man who worked to prevent all of Marshall’s accomplishments would only underscore the significance of his enshrinement.

Taney’s earned his place in the dustbin of history, it’s time for Congress to help him move.

Thurgood Marshall bust would replace one of Roger Taney in U.S. Capitol under legislation introduced by Maryland senators [Baltimore Sun]

Earlier: Horrible Justice No Longer Has Horrible Statue

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.

After a week in which issues of race and injustice have dominated the news and our thoughts, those of us involved in legal technology need to acknowledge that this industry has a diversity problem of its own and begin to explore what can be done about it.

When I say this industry has a diversity problem, I can’t point to much in the way of hard data. I know of only one study of racial diversity among founders of legal tech companies. It was conducted two years ago by Kristen Sonday, cofounder and COO of legal tech startup Paladin, a pro bono management platform.

As I reported then, Sonday analyzed the backgrounds of 478 founders from 269 legal tech companies. She found that only 26 were black or Latinx. As percentages, 2.3% of founders in legal tech were black and 3.1% were Latinx. Even when accounting for Asian, Indian, and Middle Eastern founders, the total number of founders of color was still just 26.5%.

Sonday also looked at gender diversity. She found that just 13.8% of legal tech founders were women — less even than the average across industries of 17% women founders.

A study published two months ago of legal tech in Australia found that 30% of Australian legal tech companies had women as founders or cofounders. That study did not look at racial diversity.

If there have been other studies of racial diversity in the legal tech industry, I am not aware of them. However, observation is enough to tell us that black and Latinx founders remain only a small fraction of those at the helms of U.S. legal tech companies.

And founders are only part of the picture. It is equally important that there be diversity among those who work in legal tech — in management, engineering, sales, marketing, and everywhere else. Here again, observation of those who staff trade-show booths or speak on educational programs suggests that diversity is severely lacking.

So what can be done to increase diversity in the legal tech industry?

Bryan Parker

I put that question to Bryan Parker, cofounder and CEO of Legal Innovators, an alternative legal services provider that focuses on enhancing diversity and inclusion. Parker was the guest Friday on our Legaltech Week journalists’ roundtable, which we devoted this week to a conversation on race in law.

After starting out as an M&A lawyer at Shearman & Sterling, Parker left law for a career as an investment banker and serial entrepreneur. In recognition of his many years of corporate leadership, he was selected for membership in the Executive Leadership Council — a national organization of African-American CEOs and senior executives at Fortune 1000 and Fortune 500 companies.

He published an article last week in The American Lawyer, What the Death of George Floyd Should Teach the Legal Industry.

During our Friday roundtable, when I asked him that question, he offered several thoughts on how to increase diversity in the legal tech industry:

• Consumers can help drive change. Consumers have been the driving force pushing change at some of the world’s largest technology companies, including Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Legal tech startups are no different than Silicon Valley startups in this regard. Although Parker did not say this explicitly, I take that to mean that those who are purchasers of legal tech products — law firms, legal departments, legal organizations — should look for and even demand diversity in the companies with which they do business.
• Diversify the pipeline of those coming into the field. If we want to increase diversity in legal tech, we need to increase the diversity of the pipeline of those coming into the field. That requires starting earlier to look for individuals who are interested in careers in both law and technology, increasing their access to STEM programs, and providing funding for them to participate in STEM programs.
• Define and track metrics for diversity. Part of the answer to diversifying the pipeline is to define and track the metrics of success. “What we measure ends up becoming true, these are the results we end up seeing,” Parker said. “Let’s measure the right things that we want to see change and then let’s contribute to them.”
• Provide mentorship. Noting that part of his company’s model is based on the European concept of apprenticeship, Parker urged a similar approach to bringing diversity into legal tech — take those people who could one day be legal tech founders or engineers and pair them with people or internship programs where they can get mentorship.

The educational system is key to feeding this pipeline, Parker emphasized, noting that, 65 years after Brown v. Board of Education, in which Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren urged integration “with all deliberate speed,” equal opportunities in STEM careers are still lacking.

“Tell me in what world ‘all deliberate speed’ equals 65 years,” Parker said. “This is why we have to measure things and hold people accountable.”

I would add that one other way to promote diversity in legal tech is through investment dollars.

Three months ago, I reported on a survey done by Dana Denis-Smith, CEO of Obelisk Support in London, in which she looked at 10 years of investments in legal tech and other “new law” companies. She found that just under 1% of formal investment overall in the new law sector had gone to companies founded solely by women.

Her study did not examine investments by founders’ race. But whether with regard to gender or race, it stands to reason that investors in legal technology can have a significant impact in promoting diversity by the choices they make in where they put their dollars.

As in all aspects of our lives, the greater the diversity in legal tech, the more we all stand to benefit, whether we are developers of products or purchasers, whether we are those who deliver legal services or those who receive them.

And we can all play a role in helping to make greater diversity a reality.

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

With a pandemic still out there and the prospect of being locked indoors with thousands of strangers for two days a daunting prospect, the District of Columbia bar examiners came to the conclusion that the planned September administration of the bar would be simply too dangerous. Instead, the jurisdiction announced that they’ll be scrapping that plan and offering an October exam to be administered remotely. This sounds like good news… but it’s not.

This is what Indiana and Michigan are already doing and is obviously the most responsible course of action assuming we’re going to stick with having a bar exam and not just blowing past that requirement and making serious reforms to law schools and attorney licensing.

Except, as the NCBE reminds us, they’re refusing to put in the modicum of effort required to offer the UBE online, meaning all of these jurisdictions — including DC — will have to offer tests with scores that aren’t transferrable anywhere else. Other states could and should pass immediate reciprocity rules allowing those who pass online exams in 2020 to move, but common sense is fraught with apathy.

This all goes to the heart of what DC managed to get wrong about doing the right thing. Washington attorneys thrive on being admitted other places. Indeed, most folks don’t even take the DC bar exam, but instead waive in from other states, making the lack of portability fatal to this plan. For those who really are committed to only practicing in the District this doesn’t matter, but for the majority of applicants, going to a non-transferrable test is a dealbreaker and they’d be better off sitting out the 2020 exam and taking a different test later.

But the DC bar made this change while sticking to its commitment to not offer refunds. Applicants who get little to no value out of a non-transferrable test are simply out their $232. There’s a chance that a pending court order clarifying the move will see the light and let people get their refunds, but no one should hold their breath.

Like most things in life, it’s all about context. Michigan doesn’t need to refund anyone to go online because everyone taking the Michigan bar intends to practice primarily in Michigan. Early in the crisis, some speculated about taking bar exams in jurisdictions that they never intended to practice in just to get a portable score, but many states explicitly prohibit this sort of forum shopping — if you want a score from one of those states, you’re going to have to jump through the local practice hoops in those states.

But that’s not the space that DC occupies in the legal landscape. DC practitioners often work in surrounding states and attorneys from all over the country have valid reasons to also be admitted in DC. It’s the melting pot of attorney licenses. If it can’t afford portability then its bar exam is quite simply no longer the product that many applicants signed up for.

While there are those angry at the DC bar examiners for making online move, this is misplacing the anger a bit. It’s the right thing to do at this juncture. If the NCBE wants to get onboard with reality and produce an online test, that would solve everyone’s problems, but barring that — look, a pun! — jurisdictions going solo and online is a prudent move. At the same time, holding applicants hostage to a test after the value proposition has fundamentally changed is uncalled for. Both things can be true.

Just give people their money back if they don’t want to take an online exam.

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.

Oklahoma State University’s men’s basketball team is banned from participating in the 2020-21 postseason. It is probably the toughest penalty that the school received on June 5 after the NCAA’s Division I Committee on Infractions determined that a former basketball associate head coach at the school violated NCAA ethical conduct rules by accepting thousands of dollars in bribes from a couple of financial advisors.

The public infractions decision was made public in a 27-page document, which also included discipline on the university’s athletic department by way of a three-year probation, a reduction of men’s basketball scholarships through the 2022-23 academic years, a $10,000 fine plus 1% of the men’s basketball program budget, as well as other penalties. The former basketball associate head coach, Lamont Evans, also received a 10-year show-cause order, which means that if Evans is hired by a program, the school will be required to show cause as to why Evans should not be restricted from any athletically related duties. Many believe that this means Evans will be precluded from coaching college basketball players for at least the next 10 years and likely for the rest of his life.

Evans was arrested in September 2017 for allegedly accepting the aforementioned cash bribes in exchange for a promise to persuade college basketball players to retain certain financial advisors when the players ultimately became professionals. Testimony elicited in the judicial proceedings indicated that the financial advisors paid Evans roughly $2,000 per month for some time as part of the scheme.

Additionally, meetings were allegedly set up by Evans in an effort to connect certain basketball players with the financial advisors. The public infractions decision highlights a meeting that was set up between an Oklahoma State basketball player and one of the financial advisors as well as another meeting between the other advisor and a family member of a college basketball player, not affiliated with Oklahoma State, who had declared for the NBA Draft.

NCAA rules prohibit athletics department staff members, including an associate head coach, from receiving benefits in exchange for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a college athletes and a financial advisor.

“As the associate head coach admitted in his sentencing hearing, he abused this trust for his own personal gain,” states the public infractions decision. “He sold access to student-athletes and used his position as a coach and mentor to steer them toward a career decision — retaining the financial advisors’ services — that would financially benefit him. In short, he put his interests ahead of theirs.”

The deadline for Oklahoma State to file an appeal of the decision is June 20. The school has indicated that it is “stunned by the severity of the penalties and strongly disagrees with them” and that it will file an immediate appeal of the penalties. Thereafter, the appeal will be heard by the NCAA’s Infractions Appeal Committee and, if upheld, Oklahoma State will need to bear the consequences of the acts of its prior associate head coach.

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

Last week, furloughed (and later suspended) Biglaw associate Colinford Mattis and housing attorney Urooj Rahman, both charged for their involvement with a Molotov cocktail attack on a police vehicle in Brooklyn, New York, were due to be released on $250,000 bond. On Friday afternoon, that all changed thanks to a decision made by the Second Circuit.

Oral arguments were presented before a panel of Second Circuit judges on Friday morning, and by the end of the business day, both Mattis and Rahman were taken into custody by U.S. Marshals. Here’s more from the New York Law Journal:

U.S. Attorney David Kessler told the panel that Rahman and Mattis must be detained amid ongoing protests in Brooklyn, given that their alleged crime took place early in the morning of May 30 during widespread protests related to the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

A witness also accused Rahman of offering a Molotov cocktail to people protesting in the area, according to prosecutors, and a completed incendiary device and materials to make more were allegedly found in Mattis’ van.

Rahman and Mattis’ attorneys emphasized that neither had ever been arrested before. Both Mattis, who has been suspended from his job as an associate at Pryor Cashman pending the resolution of the criminal proceeding, and Rahman, a tenants’ attorney in Bronx Housing Court, have stable lives and support from their families and friends, their lawyers said.

Kessler noted in his brief that “[e]ach defendant is a licensed attorney who has attended prestigious universities and law schools. As such, the defendants were well aware of the severity of their criminal conduct when they decided to hurl a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD vehicle and to incite others to do the same. They knew their acts endangered the NYPD officers and protesters on the street, as well as their own futures, and the defendants were undeterred.”

An expedited appeal schedule has been set up, with first briefs due to the Second Circuit on June 10.

Lawyers Accused of Throwing Molotov Cocktail in Brooklyn Protests Return to Jail as 2nd Circuit Grants Stay [New York Law Journal]

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.

Three things:

Thing one: Lawyers were arrested in New York last week for throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police patrol car. If you had any sense, you’d be asking, “Why do they call those things ‘Molotov cocktails’?”

Good news: You’ve come to the right place.

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov was the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs at the start of World War II. Molotov and the German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, signed the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact — the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact — on August 23, 1939, which permitted World War II to start with the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. A couple of months later, the Soviets invaded Finland. The Soviets insisted that they weren’t bombing Finland, but rather were distributing humanitarian food parcels to help their starving neighbors. The Finns dubbed the bombs “Molotov bread baskets” and created a drink to accompany the food parcels: “Molotov cocktails.”

Thing two: Joe Alioto was the mayor of San Francisco from 1968 to 1976. I tried a case with Joe in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1992. We were sitting in a hotel room in St. Paul when the Rodney King verdict was announced and the riots started.

Alioto rarely mentioned his time as mayor. Watching the rioting on television, he shook his head and started talking wistfully: “Damn fools. When Martin Luther King was shot in 1968, every mayor in America was saying, ‘Stay calm.  Don’t riot.’ So there were riots all across America. I got into a police car, stuck my head up through the sun roof, and shouted through a megaphone, ‘The murderers can’t win! Come to City Hall tomorrow at noon and protest with me!’ We had no riots and a huge protest the next day. When will they ever learn?”

I flashed back to that moment with the death of George Floyd. Most public officials said, “Stay calm. Don’t riot.” So they got riots. Only a very few said, “This is an outrage! Come protest with me!”

As Joe Alioto (may he rest in peace) said some 30 years ago: Damn fools.  When will they ever learn?

Thing three: Corporations around the world are telling managers to reach out to people of color and offer the support that’s appropriate in times like this. I, at least, find that working from home makes that a more difficult task.  Chatting with people by the water cooler is easy; any topic can come up. But affirmatively raising sensitive issues by telephone or Zoom is far more difficult. In group settings — a meeting of everyone in a small department, for example — one can say during a Zoom call that the Magnificent Mile was filled with shattered glass on Tuesday and boarded up like a war zone on Wednesday; what’s happening near you? That could start an appropriate conversation about how we can’t let the message of racial injustice be lost in the aftermath of looting. But it’s harder in individual calls.

Working from home has many advantages, but it doesn’t encourage meaningful discussions with co-workers.

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

* The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously held that a barber had the right to remain open despite closure orders related to COVID-19. Maybe the justices just really needed haircuts… [Deadline]

* Derek Chauvin, the police officer accused of killing George Floyd, is suspected of illegally voting in Florida while he was a resident of Minnesota. [New York Post]

* An attorney is accused of spitting in a teenager’s face during protests this past week. The lawyer should know this is not protected by the First Amendment. [Urban Milwaukee]

* Another attorney is accused of shooting a disabled veteran who was driving through a protest. [Fox News Denver]

* MSNBC has hired controversial ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page as a legal analyst. [Fox News]

* The City of Elizabeth, New Jersey has scored a win against New York City over NYC’s efforts to move homeless people to Elizabeth. This whole scheme is very reminiscent of a South Park episode… [MyCenteralJersey.com]

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.

Dube is facing the charge of defeating or obstructing the course of
justice as defined in section 184(1)(d) of the Criminal Law
(Codification and Reform) Act.

These allegations arise from a matter wherein Dube represented his
client and filed an urgent chamber application at the Bulawayo High
Court, and obtained an order in favour of his client.
According to the state, Dube allegedly filed a fake certificate of
service purporting to have served one of the Respondents in the
matter, when he had not, and thereafter proceeded to obtain an order
by default.

ZLHR notes with concern that the allegations arise from conduct of a
lawyer during the course of his work, and the law has remedies
available to address such issues. The use of the criminal justice
system against lawyers is frowned upon and viewed as an attack on the
legal profession.

ZLHR condemns the increasing targeted arrests of lawyers during
execution of their professional duties.

As a lawyer, Dube has the right to practice a trade of his choice as
provided for under section 64 of the Constitution and when practicing,
he should do so without fear or favour.
In terms of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers, the state has an obligation to guarantee the functioning of
lawyers without fear of harassment, intimidation or threats of
prosecution for conducting their duties.

Lawyers must not be identified with the cause of their clients and
lawyers should enjoy immunity for executing their professional duties
in good faith.
For ZLHR, it is distressing that we are seeing a worrying rise in the
intimidation, threats and reprisals of lawyers in Zimbabwe.

Dube becomes the second lawyer to be arrested this week after the
arrest of Advocate Thabani Mpofu on 1 June 2020 on the same allegation
of defeating or obstructing the course of justice as defined in
section 184(1)(d) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
In both cases, the lawyers were arrested on allegations arising from
their role of representing their clients.

On Saturday 6 June 2020, Dube, who was represented Prince Bhutshe-Dube
and assisted by Godfrey Nyoni of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights,
appeared at Tredgold Magistrates Court in Bulawayo and was granted
RTGS$5 000 bail and returns to court on 18 June 2020.

ZLHR therefore demands;

1.    That the state puts an end to the targeted arrest of lawyers on
allegations that arise from representing their clients;

2.    That matters relating to the conduct of lawyers should be referred
to the Law Society of Zimbabwe, a body that is responsible for the
regulation of lawyers at law.

National Assembly Sittings 2nd to 4th June

Amended Marriages Bill Approved

The National Assembly sat on 2nd, 3rd and 4th June for the second continuous week.  It then adjourned until Tuesday 16th June.  This short recess will allow the Senate, which last sat on 21st May, to resume sitting from Tuesday 9th to Thursday 11th June in the chamber of the National Assembly, where it is easier for Senators to comply with physical distancing rules than in the smaller chamber Senate chamber.  This bulletin outlines proceedings in the National Assembly last week and what business awaits the Senate this coming week.

In the National Assembly 2nd to 4th June

Bills

Marriages Bill – Amended Bill passed and sent to Senate

On Wednesday 3rd June the Speaker announced receipt of a non-adverse Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC] report on the amendments to clauses 9, 11 and 40 [the controversial civil partnerships clause] of the original Bill and the entirely new clause 10 added to the Bill [necessitating the renumbering of clauses 11 and 40 as 12 and 41 respectively.  [These amendments had been made during the Committee Stage the previous week, and Bill Watch 33/2020 of 1st June [link] provides more detail on them.]  The amended Bill was then given its Third Reading and transmitted to the Senate for consideration.

Other Bills – Second Reading stages

There was no progress on the other Bills on the Order Paper, all of them either in the Second Reading stage or awaiting its commencement, as indicated in Bill Watch 33/2020 [link].  Priority was accorded instead to other business, most of it concerning the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy, as outlined below.

Other business – Tuesday 2nd June

Parliamentary Delegation Report on 45th Plenary Assembly of the SADC Parliamentary Forum in Maputo, July 2019

Hon E. Ncube presented the Report of the Delegation to the 45th Plenary Assembly of the SADC Parliamentary Forum held at the Joaquim Chissano International Conference Centre, Maputo, Mozambique from 15th to 25th July 2019 [link].  The delegation was led by the Speaker of the National Assembly.

Public Accounts Committee Report: Analysis of the 2017 Auditor General’s Report on Local Authorities

In the absence of Hon Biti, Hon Raidza presented the report of the Public Accounts Committee [PAC] containing the PAC’s Report [link] on its Analysis of the above Auditor-General’s Report on Kariba, Karoi, Chegutu and Chinhoyi municipal councils. Debate on the report began and  Hon Nduna, MP for Chegutu West, called for the sacking of the Chegutu Town Clerk.

Other business – Wednesday 3rd June

Questions without Notice, which are limited to policy issues, took up the first hour of the sitting in accordance with Standing Orders.  Hon Mliswa asked the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to explain why so many arrests resulted in acquittals, and so few in convictions.  Who was at fault, the investigators or the prosecuting authorities and what was Government policy?.  The Minister revealed that Government policy being implemented now is that “the police, Anti-Corruption Commission and the Prosecution must sit down together and agree that this docket is ready for prosecution before they go on to arrest [emphasis by Veritas]. He continued, “We are trying to encourage them to remove this silo mentality and work together, the investigators and those lawyers who are responsible for prosecution, so that they satisfy each other that they have a case that they can prosecute and win.”

Another MP’s attempt to ask a supplementary question about unsuccessful prosecutions was turned down by the Deputy Speaker. When the MP protested vigorously about this ruling, Hon Mliswa came to the Deputy Speaker’s defence by reprimanding MPs for not respecting the Deputy Speaker because she is a woman.  Note: This incident is mentioned because it may be relevant to the point of privilege concerning Hon Mliswa that was raised in the House the next day [see below].

Questions with Notice were, on the motion of the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, deferred to allow the Minister of Health and Child Care to present a Ministerial Statement.

Ministerial Statement on on the current status of the Covid 19 pandemic in the country

This Ministerial Statement [link] was presented by the Minister of Health and Child Care.  The Minister’s statement and his replies to MPs’ many requests for clarification took nearly three hours, with the adjournment until 4th June coming at 6.14 pm.

Other business – Thursday 4th June

In the absence of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Hon Tsitsi Gezi chaired the sitting.

Hon Mliswa twice escorted out of House by Serjeant-at-Arms

At the start of the sitting, when points of privilege were permitted, Hon Kashambe, MP for Seke, complained that MPs generally have been treated unequally by presiding officers when they wish to debate, with Hon Mliswa being favoured over other MPs to the extent that he is apparently “allowed to say whatever he wants, when he wants and at whatever time”, even getting away with insulting the Speaker and Deputy Speaker by accusing them of being corrupt.  Hon Mliswa tried to interrupt what Hon Kashambe was saying by repeatedly standing up.  According to Hansard, “commotion in the House” ensued and Hon Mliswa used “unparliamentary words” in response to a perceived insult by a fellow MP.  The Deputy Speaker then had him escorted out of the House by the Serjeant-at-Arms, only for him to re-enter through another door and accuse her of destroying Parliament.  He was escorted out a second time, and the Deputy Speaker assured Hon Kashambe that the presiding officers would consider his issue with the administration of Parliament and come up with a position.

Portfolio Committee Report on Schools Opening in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

Hon. Misihairabwi Mushonga, chairperson of the portfolio committee on Primary and Secondary Education, seconded by Hon. Madhuku, moved that the House takes note of the committee’s report [link].  The report recommends a phased approach to the re-opening of schools, guided by what is practically possible given the limited resources available.  The committee, having assessed what is possible, advised against opening schools generally until Government can meet relevant WHO guidelines, and recommended that the rest of 2020 be limited to completing examinations, with the June exams being put off until September and the November exams perhaps being held in December.  Debate may continue on 16th June.

Ministerial Statement on Measures to Ensure Availability of Cash and Stabilisation of Prices given the shocks emanating from the COVID–19 pandemic

The Minister of Finance and Economic Development predominantly optimistic statement.  The Minister’s replies to MPs’ many requests for clarification took up the rest of the sitting.  The statement and the Minister’s responses to requests for clarification are available on the Veritas website [link].

The adjournment to Tuesday 16th June came at 6.21 pm.

Coming up in the Senate 9th to 11th June

The main items due for consideration by the Senate are the amended Marriages Bill.as passed by the National Assembly on 3rd June, and the repeat of the previous Senate’s vote on the Third Reading of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 1) Bill of 2017 as belatedly ordered by the Constitutional Court of 30th March; approval of the new Senate Standing Orders; and the continuation of the debate on the motion calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

Marriages Bill as amended

It is to be hoped that Senators will be provided with an updated copy of the Bill incorporating the amendments made by the National Assembly – even if it has to be a soft copy sent to them on their tablets.  [See above for a link to details of the amendments].  This item of business is not yet on the Order Paper for Tuesday 9th June, so the Bill may not come up until later.

Repeat of Third Reading Vote on Constitution Amendment No. 1 Bill of 2017

This is now an item on the Order Paper for 9th June.  In a decision on 30th March this year the Constitutional Court held that the Senate had not properly passed the above Bill in 2017.  [See Bill Watch 27/2020 of 13th May [link] for the details.]

According to the Constitutional Court, at least 54 affirmative votes are required to pass a constitutional Bill in the Senate, whether or not there are temporary vacancies.  If a fresh vote fails to get the minimum 54 votes before the end of September, the court’s declaration of nullity will come into effect.

Bills Already Passed by Parliament but Not Yet Acts

The Bills in this category, both passed by Parliament in March, have not yet been submitted to the President for his assent and gazetting as Acts:

• Freedom of Information Bill
• International Treaties Bill

The latest information from Parliament is that the final page proofs of both Acts were sent back to the Government Printer on 3rd June, which may mean that they will be in the President’s in-basket reasonably soon.  He will then have the 21 days allowed by the Constitution to either grant his assent and sign the Acts and have them gazetted as law or, if he has any reservations, return them to Parliament for consideration of his reservations.

Bills Awaiting Printing and Gazetting

There are three Bills in this category [the date in parenthesis is the date the Bill was sent to the Government Printer for printing and gazetting]:

• Centre for Education Innovation, Research and Development Bill [3rd March]
• Manpower Planning and Development Bill [3rd March]
• Census and Statistics Amendment Bill [28th May, after Cabinet approval on 21st May].  

Note: According to the official announcement of its approval by Cabinet, the Census and Statistics Amendment Bill provides for a national census to be conducted at 10-year intervals in a manner that will allow the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to take into account the resultant census data in the delimitation of electoral constituency boundaries, as required by the Constitution.  This probably means that the Bill is bound to be treated as urgent.

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

Post published in: Featured

On Saturday 6 June 2020 which marked day 69 of the national lockdown declared by President Emmerson Mnangagwa and has been in place since 30 March 2020, the Ministry of Health and Child Care reported an increase in the number of confirmed cases increased to two hundred and seventy-nine (279). The number of cumulative tests done stood at fifty-two thousand seven hundred and twenty-five (52 725). Of these, fifty-two thousand four hundred and forty-six (52 446) were negative. The number of recoveries increased to thirty-three (33) and the death toll remains at four (4).
2.0       Methodology
Information contained in this report is derived from the following Forum Members:

• Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP)
• Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
• Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR)
• Counselling Services Unit (CSU)
• Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights (ZADHR)
• Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZimRights)

6.0       Court Update
Police have now charged the MDC Alliance co-vice presidents, Tendai Biti, Lynette Karenyi-Kore, and five other senior party officials who were arrested on 5 June 2020 outside the Morgan Richard Tsvangirai House initially on allegations of the violating the lockdown regulations.  Biti and Karenyi-Kore appeared in court on 6 June 2020 together with  Gladys Hlatshwayo who is secretary for international relations and her deputy Lovemore Chinoputsa, party’s deputy secretary general David Chimhini, deputy youth assembly spokesperson Womberayi Nhende, and Vongai Tome.  The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights reported that initially the leaders were charged with disorderly conduct, but the charge was later changed to criminal nuisance under sec 46 as read with paragraph 2 (5) (v) of the Third Schedule to the Criminal Code.   The Forum is concerned that the charges for breaking lockdown regulations appear to have been added as an afterthought, and therefore  police are using lockdown measures to restrict human rights unjustifiably.

7.0  Conclusion
The Forum is concerned with the increasing number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in quarantine centres. The increasing numbers point to a likelihood of the spread of COVID-19 within the quarantine centres. The Forum therefore calls on the Ministry of Health and Child Care to review the conditions in the quarantine centres.

The Forum further reiterates its calls citizens to observe COVID-19 regulations to curb the spread of the pandemic.

Post published in: Featured