Category: News Feeds

Conservatives must be happy that the little fragments of judicial independence Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has seem to be withering away.

The right wing has long had a hard-on for Chevron deference — the foundation of administrative law established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. which grants deference to government agencies’ statutory interpretations. Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy has long been opposed to Chevron, and Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote of the case, saying, “Chevron seems no less than a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.” And the Heritage Foundation — an organization so racist they actually named themselves after white history — said Chevron “raises major constitutional concerns, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, and has little basis in American legal history.” But despite this, Thomas has been in favor of the case that makes the administrative state go.

In the 2005 case National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority in defense of Chevron. Brand X established that under Chevron statutory interpretations by administrative agencies outweigh the precedents of appeals courts unless the court found the statute was “unambiguous.” But now Thomas thinks his Brand X logic was all wrong.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied cert in Baldwin v. United States, which, you know, is something that happens all the time and is generally unremarkable. Thomas flipped the script in Baldwin — which relies on Chevron/Brand X — writing a dissent to the denial of cert, because he wants to tear it all down.

And, because of course, Thomas cites himself for the proposition that he should be able to overturn his own decision:

“Although I authored Brand X, ‘it is never too late to ‘surrende[r] former views to a better considered position,’” Thomas wrote in his Monday dissent, quoting himself from a 2018 opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.

That’s one helluva stare decisis snake eating itself.

So if we are left to parse Thomas’s new judicial “philosophy,” it’s that we should trust his original understanding of people who died 200 years ago despite the fact he can’t even trust his own original understanding of something HE WROTE 15 years go. Delightful.

---

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).

Prince’s estate administration just got a lot more crazy. The icon died intestate in 2016. His estate is still not settled. His heirs are his next-of-kin, his six siblings (including one, Alfred Jackson, who died last summer). Since Prince’s death there has been much litigation as to control and management of the estate, which is estimated to be worth between $100 million and $300 million, in addition to valuable royalty rights.

Jackson’s death has had a significant effect on the Prince estate administration. Prior to his passing, Jackson had signed most of his interest in Prince’s estate to Primary Wave. Primary Wave is a talent management, entertainment and digital management company. Primary Wave also invests in music publishing. Recently, Primary Wave made news by acquiring 70 percent of music group Air Supply’s royalty income stream.

As a result of Primary Wave’s acquisition from Jackson, it wants to be considered an heir of the Prince estate. This could affect the management of the estate. Some of Prince’s other heirs are objecting.  Jackson died soon after signing over his interest to Primary Wave. Some suggest that he has mental issues. Tyka Nelson, a sister of Prince, also made a deal with Primary Wave.

It gets even more complicated. Jackson left a last will and testament wherein he left the reminder of his share in Prince’s estate to Raffles Van Exel, a Dutch entertainment consultant. Jackson’s family is contesting the last will and testament. Van Exel is famously known for being friends with Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson.

Administering an estate of Prince’s size and complexity is expensive. Court documents reveal that Comerica, the bank administering the estate, has received $1.5 million in fees. Attorneys have also presented bills or asserted liens in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The family is waiting for the estate to be finalized so that they may receive their monies. In selling his interest in Prince’s estate, Jackson wanted to raise cash so that he could enjoy the money sooner. Unfortunately he passed away shortly after making the deal.

Sometimes estates are complicated by the death of beneficiaries during the administration period. If an heir or a beneficiary dies during the estate administration, her respective estate will receive the first estate’s share. Therefore, if an heir leaves her own last will and testament, the beneficiaries under her last will will inherit from the first estate. If an heir dies without a last will, her heirs will divide her share in accordance with the laws of intestacy. Last wills generally have survivorship clauses so that in order to receive a bequest from an estate, one has to survive the decedent by a set number of days. This helps to effectuate a testatrix’s intent, by ensuring that the assets will go to her beneficiaries as opposed to her beneficiary’s beneficiaries.

Prince’s estate has had its share of complexities from valuation issues, to identifying heirs, to costs. The most recent issues pertaining to Alfred Jackson can be directly linked to the tremendous costs and times associated with the estate administration. The beneficiaries of an estate, no matter how large it is, are often faced with money and time challenges as they attempt to navigate the various issues arising from the decedent’s death. For certain, had Prince executed a last will and testament, many of these issues could have been mitigated.

---

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com. 

As a public relations stunt, it’s hard to do much better than “Originalism.”

With the courts taking on increasingly volatile political decisions, it’s comforting to think that there’s an unshakeable, predictable philosophy motivating jurists. That conservatives evaluate legal questions through the immutable lens of the public understanding of the Constitution at the time of ratification reassures the public that whatever anyone thinks of conservative opinions, at least they’re based in principles and not shifting erratically based on the whims of the contemporary political aims of the GOP.

It has always been a lie of course, but it’s a pretty successful one.

The conservatives on the Court have all but given up the facade of Originalism, granting cert in a gay rights case signaling an intent to protect Catholic Social Services who got cut off by the Philadelphia adoption program for refusing to place children with same-sex couples. The basis for the looming decision, previewed over the last several years by Supreme Court Oracle Justice Alito, is that religious freedom requires government respect the religious freedom to violate discrimination laws. The only problem with this plan is that the conservatives have already ruled that the “Originalist” read of religious freedom is the exact opposite. Apparently there are more different “Originals” in the First Amendment than there are in Ray’s Pizza establishments.

For a step-by-step rundown of how this came to pass, check out this from Mike Sacks, but the nutshell version is that Justice Scalia handed down the Original^TM meaning of religious freedom back in the 90s at a time when society dared to think it meant respecting even those crazy religions that hadn’t accepted Christ as their personal savior. Scalia schooled us all on what the Founders were really thinking and explained in Smith that the First Amendment didn’t give individuals the right to say that laws violated their religious beliefs.

But today, religious freedom is en vogue among the MAGA set. Taking a page from the old segregationist schools who tried to keep out black students based on perverted religious arguments, companies like Hobby Lobby have wrapped themselves in religious liberty to keep from providing comprehensive health plans to employees. With religious liberty becoming discrimination’s most fashionable excuse, the Supreme Court finds itself at a crossroads staring back at Justice Scalia’s opinion in Smith and poised to dutifully explain that everyone should disregard the “Original” understanding of the Framers in that case and respect the “Original” understanding of the Framers they’re laying out now. By next year, everyone in FedSoc will happily tell you that this is what religious liberty always meant and that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

Obviously, this isn’t the first time the defenders of “WWTFD” (What Would The Framers Do) have had to cynically run from the clutch of slaveholders they hold up as demigods. Whenever gun regulations show up, they hilariously define the “original” meaning of the Second Amendment based on post-Civil War scraps because everyone saw George Washington march an army out to quash the Whiskey Rebellion providing pretty compelling evidence that the Founders did not think “bunch of drunks stockpiling individual firearms” had anything at all to do with the Second Amendment. In a comical effort to make this all make sense, scholars pitched the idea of “Originalism at the Right Time” which is akin to saying “I’m a virgin except for all the sex stuff.”

Still, even with the core philosophy in tatters, what more liberal legal scholars don’t understand is just how powerful “Originalism” is as a tagline. There’s no comparable judicial philosophy that can convince the uninformed that liberal jurists aren’t just making stuff up as they go along. The most popular alternative forwarded in liberal circles is “fair minded constitutionalist” which just underscores the idea that liberal jurists make case-by-case decisions based on fairness which is admirable but not great branding for a philosophy. At that point, just go back to the “Living Constitution” formulation. Find something that is intellectually consistent and provides a measure of historical stability. Like “A Reconstructionist” who views everything through the lens of a robust reading of the Fourteenth Amendment or something like that.

Anything that can stand up to the cult of Originalism. Because if anyone doubts how powerful that fake narrative is, take heed of just how many FedSoc talking heads are going to find a way to explain how this new, more Originaler opinion was the true Originalism all along.

---

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.

Over the past several years, you may have come across articles discussing possible changes to 47 U.S. Code § 230. For anyone who is not aware, Section 230(c)(1) guarantees that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Basically, Section 230 allows companies on the internet “to moderate content without becoming liable for it,” however, Section 230(c)(2) also requires that content hosts exercise “good faith” moderation practices to restrict access of “obscene,” or “excessively violent” material.

For years now, there has been a narrative regarding Section 230 liability protections, from both the political right and left, that characterizes the statute as “a gift” to giant internet-based companies. After last week, however, that narrative was affirmatively shattered.

As Mike Masnick at Techdirt makes clear, the giants of the internet industry, like Facebook, have recognized that not only can they survive without Section 230 liability protections, but that removing them would help eliminate competitors. Why? Well, without Section 230 liability protections websites are not going to host much user content given that it would open them up to lawsuits. I probably don’t need to tell anyone reading this, but litigation can be ruinously expensive, and as we have seen on an almost a weekly basis at this point, lawsuits can be weaponized by those in power in order to silence critical speech.

This is why protections like Section 230 that shield companies or individuals from ruinous, frivolous lawsuits become necessary. For a company as gigantic as Facebook, however, which has an army of attorneys on staff, the threat of lawsuits is far less of a concern. This is why supporting the repeal of Section 230 has become what Masnick calls a “strategic choice” for Facebook to harm and stifle its smaller competition.

Equally alarming to the news that Facebook is openly engaged in an effort to repeal Section 230, last week on February 19, the United States Department of Justice held a workshop called Section 230 — Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Accountability? For an in-depth breakdown on the entire workshop, Techdirt has a fantastically detailed three-part series you can find here. For general purposes, however, it need only be said here that the workshop made clear this current administration is firmly committed to repealing Section 230 protections.

Accordingly, with both big tech and the DOJ on board, and throw in bipartisan support gaining in Congress for good measure, it is officially time for those who value Section 230 protections to panic.

To understand what is at stake, consider that David Post, an expert in intellectual property law, considers Section 230 to have “been responsible for the creation of more value” than any other sentence in the U.S. Code. Per Post: “It is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like today without it. Virtually every successful online venture that emerged after 1996 — including all the usual suspects, viz. Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit, Craigslist, YouTube, Instagram, eBay, Amazon — relies in large part (or entirely) on content provided by their users, who number in the hundreds of millions, or billions … . I fail to see how any of these companies, or the thousands more like them, would exist without Section 230. The potential liability that would arise from allowing users to freely exchange information with one another, at this scale, would have been astronomical, and it is impossible for me to imagine, say, an investor providing funds for any of these ventures in a world without Section 230. [And it is not a coincidence, in my view, that these companies are all U.S.-based, no 230-like immunity being provided in most other legal systems around the world.]”

My former law professor and friend, Derek Bambauer, who teaches Internet law and intellectual property at the University of Arizona agrees with me that it’s time to panic, and in an email described our current situation this way: “The great genius of the Internet is that it empowers everyone connected to it to become an author, a composer, an artist — and to find an audience for their craft. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote more than twenty years ago, any Internet user ‘can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.’ The explosion of user-generated content that we love — from memes to fan fiction to cat videos — depends largely on the protections that Section 230 offers. Without it, platforms bear the risk that content they carry will create ruinous liability. Internet firms, like all companies, are risk-averse. Diminishing Section 230’s protections will decrease outlets for expression and will undercut our ability to benefit from the vast human creativity that, right now, is only an iPhone camera and a few clicks away.”

Repeal would also return us to the great common law dilemma that led to Section 230. In the 1990s, two cases had established the precedent that if content providers imposed virtually any form of control over user content, they could be held liable. In other words, the choice for content providers prior to Section 230 was extreme censorship or none. This is a vastly different internet than what most of us are used to, and if you value it, recent events demonstrate you’re going to have to fight for it.

---

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

He has dismally failed to compensate aggrieved families of the State-instigated murders in line with the recommendations of an international investigation committee that he commissioned himself. Mnangagwa has lied to the international community that he has compensated the victims of the murders when in fact orphans and families of the State-sanctioned murders are wallowing in abject poverty as evidenced by the video accompanying this statement. The orphans of the six victims of the August 1, 2018 murders are failing to go to school and are scrounging for food while the murderers are still to be prosecuted, in spite of Mnangagwa lying to the world that he has complied with the recommendations of the Mothlante Commission.

The Commission found the police and the army liable for the murders, which makes Mnangagwa personally culpable because he is the commander-in-chief of the military, whose rogue elements needlessly snuffed out the lives of the six innocent Zimbabweans.

The United Nations Security Council has let Zimbabwe down by failing to drag Mr. Mnangagwa before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. While Zimbabwe is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the ICC, there is a precedent of the world body not folding its hands when non-State parties have grossly abused human rights. The UN Security Council intervened in Sudan in 2005 and in Libya in 2011 when the respective countries’ leaders were fingered in crimes against humanity. Notwithstanding the excesses of the P5 members of the UNSC in Libya in 2011, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) remains a noble principle that should send a clear and unequivocal message to killer governments such as the Mnangagwa regime. Africa has also let Zimbabweans down as she has adequate provisions under Article 4 (h) of the constitutive Act of the African Union that allows the regional body to intervene in member States in respect of “grave circumstances.”

And the murderous predisposition of the ED regime constitutes a grave circumstance.

Zimbabweans are not safe from their own government. State security agents have twice killed people under the murderous regime of Mr. Mnangagwa while machete-wielding vigilante groups have wreaked havoc in the countryside, with no action whatsoever being taken against them. A slow genocide is also taking place in the country’s health institutions as the regime has completely abdicated its responsibility in respect of providing prudent health services to the citizenry.

Zimbabwe is ripe for intervention and Mr. Mnangagwa is a prime candidate for the ICC. No government elected by the people can kill the very people who voted for it unless such a government has no mandate from the people.

Zimbabweans will soon be taking it upon themselves to engage in a robust but legitimate call for the true people’s government they voted for in 2018.

#ThePeoplesGovernment

Luke Tamborinyoka
Deputy National Spokesperson.

Post published in: Featured

We all have insecurities. We all have feelings of inadequacy. We all have those feelings that drive us to act to assert that we are better. I am awesome, screamed the dust speck.

The problem is when those insecurities have impacts. If you’re taking your insecurities out on others, I have concerns about your soul.

In eighth grade, children attempt to elevate themselves at the expense of others. We are cool. You are not. We are popular. You are not. The goal is to elevate one’s self at the expense of another. That’s the innocence of the insecurity of a child. It’s also the plot to Lord of the Flies.

In law school, it’s narcissistic or, worse, bullying.

In law school, that same behavior is excruciating. People boasting of their grades. People assuring themselves that they are better than the rest of the lot. People suggesting that other colleagues are less than they are. It’s maddening, and it takes an emotional toll on people who are merely trying to learn.

Along with the pettiness comes the gossip. The pettiness comes in terms of social standing, much like junior high. Who do we invite to parties? Who do we slight? Who do we scapegoat for all of our insecurities? Who to start rumors about to feel better about ourselves? Who do we ridicule for errors?  And which colleagues do we pardon for errors because they are friends and think we are smart?

People will boast because they want to stand out. They will recount the fact they have 20 job offers, apparently unconscious of the fact that you have none. And in that process, they will make you feel less than what you are, all the while desperately seeking to feel more than what they are.

How do you avoid becoming like this? How do you avoid feeling shredded by this kind of behavior? It’s difficult, but worth the effort.

1. Be kind. Be compassionate. Realize that if someone is attacking you, absent you causing the issue, the problem is most likely an insecurity. Being kind demonstrates two things. First, you aren’t affected by the mean-spiritedness. Second, you’ll feel better as you reach out to diffuse the issue.
2. Don’t take the bait.  People sometimes like drama. They like to hold power over someone by bullying, belittling, or otherwise diminishing those they see as different. It’s difficult to ignore it (and you shouldn’t if it rises to the level of abuse), but otherwise it is good to take their power away from them.
3. Keep your eye on the prize. Why are you in law school anyway? If you’re there for external validation from other law students, you are there for the wrong reasons. Hopefully, you are there to learn and progress. If that’s the goal, the opinions of colleagues mean fairly little.
4. Surround yourself with less toxic people. The key to law school is to find a group of people who support you. People who want you to win. People who will celebrate your victories and mourn your losses with you. Those are the friends you will make for a lifetime.
5. Monitor your own behavior. It is easy to fall into the same trap as the others. To deride those with different goals. But that is the path to greater insecurity. Instead, remember the language of Henry V: The gentlest gamester is the soonest winner.

Oh, and by the way. Is this column about being a law student, or is it about being a law professor? So difficult to tell.

---

LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.

It’s well-known that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t exactly a fan of Donald Trump. During his 2016 campaign, she referred to Trump as a “faker,” and described her fears for the U.S. and the high court, saying, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

In a recent dissent noted for its “caustic tone,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed Justice Ginsburg’s earlier critiques, telling the legal world how she really felt about the fact that her Supreme Court colleagues are “partly to blame for the breakdown in the appellate process” (i.e., they seem to be bending over backwards to support the federal government’s need for “emergency” relief). As it turns out, that dissent had a perhaps unexpected reader: Donald Trump himself. Not literally, of course — after all, Trump was recently trolled because he “can’t read” — but he apparently took the time to listen to a sound bite from Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News.

Trump then took it upon himself to parrot Ingraham’s critique on his Twitter megaphone, demanding that both justices recuse themselves from “his” cases:

Here’s the clip that Trump is referencing in his tweet:

Sorry, Mr. President, but as noted by the New York Times, that’s not how this works — that’s not how any of this works.

Maybe this is Trump’s way of killing off the powerful women, since he already predicted that both Ginsburg and Sotomayor would die during his presidency, but it’s highly unlikely that either of the high court’s most liberal justices will be recusing themselves from Trump-related cases any time soon.

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases [New York Times]

---

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.

Parliamentary Sittings in February 2020

Both Houses of Parliament resumed sitting on Tuesday 11th February after a six weeks’ recess.  They met again last week and will continue this week, with sittings from Tuesday 25th February.

This bulletin starts with a brief indication of the Order Paper for this week and then outlines what happened in both Houses over the last two weeks.  A separate bulletin will cover recently gazetted Acts and Bills.

Coming up in the National Assembly This Week

Privileges Committee Report on Corruption Allegations against MPs

This is item 1 on the agenda.  As the accused MPs have had the opportunity last week to reply to the report presented last week by the chairperson of the Privileges Committee, Senator Chief Charumbira.   Now Chief Charumbira will reply to their responses.

Bills

Marriages Bill  Continuation of the Second Reading debate is item 2 on the agenda.  For progress made over the last two weeks, please see below.

Freedom of Information Bill and International Treaties Bill  These are items 3 and 4 on the agenda – for continuation of Second Reading proceedings that have already started.

Veterans of the Liberation Struggle Bill, Constitutional Court Bill and Zimbabwe Media Commission Bill   These are items 5, 6 and 7 on the agenda – all these Bills are awaiting presentation of the explanatory Ministerial speeches to begin their Second Reading stages.

Other business

Motions  Listed on the agenda immediately after the above Bills, are almost thirty motions are listed for presentation or further consideration.  These include ten new ones specifically asking the National Assembly to take note of and/or adopt Portfolio Committee reports on a large variety of subjects.  Another is the motion calling for the abolition of the death penalty that was presented on 18th February although it is now way down the Order Paper

Question Time will be on Wednesday afternoon.

Coming up in the Senate This Week

Senate

Senators have no Bills to consider.  The only Government business on the agenda is made up of five international agreements for approval of ratification or signature in terms of section 327 of the Constitution.  These agreements have already been approved by the National Assembly:

(1) Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management;

(2) Convention On the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities;

(3) Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency;

(4) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities;

(5) Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident.

Motions: Other agenda items involve continuing debate on motions carried over from last year, including the motion on the President’s speech opening the session and the motion applauding SADC’s resolution against sanctions.

Question Time will be on Thursday.

In the National Assembly since 11th February

Marriages Bill [link] – Second Reading debate in progress

The Second Reading stage of this Bill began on Tuesday 11th February, continued on Thursday 13th and Tuesday 18th February and is still to be completed.

The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs opened proceedings with a brief speech [link] outlining the purpose of the Bill and confirming that, in accordance with the Cabinet decision to drop clause 40 on Civil partnerships, he would be seeking the deletion of that clause during the Committee Stage.  Hon Mataranyika, chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, then presented the committee’s report [link] on the public hearings around the country [held by it and other committees] and in written submissions from received from members of the public.  The report contains a number of recommendations for changes to the Bill.  Contributions from individual MPs followed.  These included detailed and helpful contributions from Hon Biti and Hon Gonese.

Education Amendment Bill to go to President minus Senate Amendment

This Bill is a hangover from the previous Parliamentary session, at the very end of which, on 26th September 2019, the National Assembly voted to reject outright the Senate’s deletion of the words “sexual and” from clause 14(k)’s provision for the appointment of “sexual and reproductive health personnel” in schools.  This effectively stalled progress on the Bill pending possible resolution of the disagreement between the Houses.

In the present session, the Bill was duly restored to the Order Paper by vote of the National Assembly on 12th November, along with five other unfinished Bills that had lapsed at the end of the previous session.  No more was heard until 13th February, when the National Assembly – without any debate – approved a motion, presented by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, that the the Bill “as passed by the National Assembly on 27th August 2019, be presented to His Excellency the President for assent and signature in accordance with provisions of paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of Zimbabwe on disagreement between Houses”.   What this means is that the Bill will go to the President – and probably be gazetted as an Act – without the Senate amendment, i.e. including the words “sexual and” to which Senators took such strong objection.

In other words, the National Assembly resolved the impasse by overriding the Senate.  So, the Bill provides a rare example of the National Assembly’s use of its power to do so if a disagreement over a Bill is not otherwise resolved in the 90-day period beginning when the Bill was introduced into the Senate [Constitution, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 6(1)].  Day 1, in this case, was 28th August 2019 – so the Minister, in fact, waited for more than the required 90 days before presenting last Thursday’s motion.

The Bill will now go to the President for assent and gazetting as an Act despite the Senate’s objection.

International Treaties Bill [link]

On 20th February the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs delivered the Second Reading speech explaining the need for and purpose of this Bill.  Hon Paradza then presented the report on the Bill prepared by the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.  The report welcomed the Bill in principle but criticised it on points of detail and called for many amendments.  Debate was then adjourned.

Other Bills given their First Readings and sent to the PLC

The following three Bills were given their first readings on 12th February and immediately referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee, where they are still under consideration:

Forest Amendment Bill [link]

Financial Adjustments Bill [link] [critically discussed in Bill Watch 66/2019 [link]

National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill [link].

Privileges Committee Report on Corruption Allegations against MPs

On 18th and 20th February, The House resumed consideration of the report by the Privileges Committee chaired by Senator Chief Charumbira.  The committee was appointed to inquire into allegations of solicitation of a bribe against four MPs.  [Reminder: The report presented in December 2019 – see Bill Watch 67/2019 [link] – concluded that the MPs had not been proved to have solicited a bribe, but that they had conducted themselves in a manner creating an impression of impropriety by meeting the complainant outside Parliament and at night and should be disciplined for that.].  The MPs concerned now had their chance to put their side and protested vigorously and at some length against the privileges committee’s “grossly unreasonable” adverse findings on impropriety, complaining that they had not been afforded an opportunity to respond to the new charge of impropriety and that the committee’s report did not specify which standing orders or rules it believed had been infringed.  Committee chairperson Chief Charumbira still has to reply to the debate.

Ministerial Statement on Corona Virus

MPs requested a Ministerial Statement on the country’s preparedness in relation to the Corona Virus.  On 20th February the Minister of Health and Child Care obliged [link], and was afterwards asked to clarify several points.

Motion for abolition of death penalty

On 18th February Hon Dorcas Sibanda [MDC-A] presented her motion calling on “the Executive” to abolish the death penalty, in a short but impassioned speech urging all Parliamentarians to become abolitionists and support her campaign.  Hon Kindness Paradza [ZANU PF] seconded the motion, and several MPs then contributed to the debate, with those supporting the motion outnumbering slightly those who supported retention of the death penalty for such as the current machete killers and those who rape and kill small children.  Debate was then adjourned.

Comment:  As Veritas has pointed out in many bulletins, the Constitution leaves it to the Legislature – meaning Parliament and the President – to decide whether or not to maintain the death penalty. A short and simple Act of Parliament could abolish it by repealing the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law Code and the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. It is not necessary to amend the Constitution. Hon Sibanda and Hon Paradza were, therefore, right when they said the death penalty could simply be abolished by legislative measures to remove it from the statute book.    

Petition to Parliament for Act on Independent Complaints Mechanism as required by Constitution, section 210

On 20th February the Speaker announced that the Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs and Security Services would consider a petition from Mr E.T. Zimudzi asking Parliament to enact legislation providing for an Independent Complaints Mechanism as required by section 210 of the Constitution.

Comment:  Bravo Mr Zimudzi!  Perhaps Parliament can be relied on to venture into territory where the Executive has feared to tread – and the Constitutional Court has for four years now, without explanation, failed to give judgment in a straightforward case brought by Veritas asking the court to order the Government to comply with section 210 of the Constitution by taking a Bill to Parliament [Rashid Mahiya v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs et al, CCZ 42/15].

In the Senate since 11th February

The Senate has had no Bills to consider so far this year, something that may change when Bills start coming up from the National Assembly, probably not until next month.  This state of affairs resulted in short sittings, with Senators continuing their contributions to debates on motions previously presented.

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

Post published in: Featured

In addition to grand larceny and forgery, Nicholas Genovese now also stands convicted of securities fraud, having pleaded guilty to defrauding investors of $11 million in a fake hedge fund. Genovese, of course, recruited his victims by pretending to be the heir to a Long Island pharmacy chain, a tall tale that certainly included no mention of the aforementioned convictions and did include a fake resume full of fake degrees and fake jobs at Goldman Sachs, but also one that also meant a fairly limited number of potential marks: specifically those from the New York area who remembered a drug store that hasn’t existed in 17 years.