Category: News Feeds

As diligent followers of either Kim Kardashian or law school gossip know, the second-oldest Kardashian sibling has taken a step to follow in her father’s footsteps and is working to become a lawyer. Though she taking a non-traditional route to becoming an esquire (she’s working through an apprenticeship program), she’s been working her way through a standard 1L curriculum.

Through her constantly updating social media, you get a sense of her coursework. There was the criminal law issue spotter that featured some of her famous friends. Definitely some appropriate 1L work. Then she explained that she was derelict in her live tweeting duties to keep up with torts homework.

Now she’s taken to her Instagram stories to report once the kids go to bed, Kim K. starts work on her contracts homework. And, yes, of course, she’s rocking the IRAC method.

Looks like she’s really serious about living that law school life.

---

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).

“Flow.”

It’s the mental state in which you’re fully immersed in an activity, performing it effortlessly, and almost divorced from the rest of the world.

A great pianist might experience the state of flow in the midst of a performance.  A great athlete might experience it in the midst of a game.  Flow is being “in the zone,” although the “flow state” was actually named by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in 1975, of course.  (Have I mentioned that Google is a great gadget?)

What does flow have to do with law?

Because lawyers can be in a flow state, too.

Did you ever argue an appeal, and the only thing that existed in the world was the panel?  You were completely focused on questions, and answers, and making your point.  When the red light came on, you didn’t know where the time had gone, and everyone congratulated you on the argument.  Where were you?  In flow.

Or maybe it happens during jury trials (though long trials are a long time to remain in a state of flow).

Some folks are in a state of panic before jury trials.  Some are in stress.

But then the trial starts, and a lucky few go into flow, performing effortlessly at an extraordinarily high level.

(Or some people absolutely hate preparing for and trying cases, but they love the ability to tell war stories after the fact, and that’s where they find joy in the game.  To each his own.)

Maybe you find flow elsewhere in the law:  Arguing tough motions.  Deposing adverse experts.  Sitting at a desk, pen in hand, marking up an extremely tricky brief.

You look at your watch, and hours have vanished.  The work product is great.  You were in flow.

At a law firm, the times when you’re in flow are the best times.   You’re doing something challenging.  You’re immersed in it.  You’re performing at your best.  And time passes unnoticed.

Sort of the opposite of document review, but that’s another story.

When you go in-house, you still need flow:  It’s part of what makes work satisfying.  But you’ll probably have to find it in different activities.  Depending on where you work, you may no longer be arguing motions or appeals, taking depositions, or trying cases.  So you’ll have to find flow elsewhere.

You might still find flow in editing briefs.  You might find flow in giving presentations to the Board.  There might be some other aspect of your in-house job that has you immersed and performing at your best.

But be sure that there’s an opportunity to be in flow before you choose (or as you decide whether to keep) your in-house job.

Flow is, after all, a big piece of what makes work worth doing.  (You may be in flow for only a small percentage of your time at work, but it could easily be those moments that make your job worthwhile.)

If you choose a job that provides many benefits, but strips away the chance for you ever to be in flow, you may have picked the wrong job.

---

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 Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

The preparations for the much awaited people’s Free Zimbabwe peaceful march remain on course and are now at an advanced stage.

The people’s Free Zimbabwe peaceful march will be held on Friday 16 August 2019, in line with Section 59 of our national Constitution that guarantees all citizens of Zimbabwe the unconditional right to demonstrate and petition peacefully.

In this regard, no stone has been left unturned in strict measures to ensure that the people’s Free Zimbabwe march is going to be most peaceful one ever witnessed in the country.

In particular, hundreds of peace marshalls will be deployed.

Further, digital cameras will be used to film the entire march to ensure that any violent planted elements trying to disrupt the peaceful march will be fully recorded.

This is meant to ensure that the people’s Free Zimbabwe march is not just guaranteed to be peaceful, but also to be resounding success.

The MDC is thus concerned by the spirited attempts by Zanu PF and the rogue regime to message and plan for the people’s Free Zimbabwe march, that they are clearly not part of.

Indeed, Zanu PF and the rogue regime have no business whatsoever related to the people’s Free Zimbabwe peaceful march.

lt is very clear that that both Zanu PF and the rogue regime are now in a panic mode and desperate to justify their well known own violent behaviour.

This then explains why they are now actively using their functionaries such as Cain Mathema, Pupurai Togarepi, Energy Mutodi, and Victor Matemadanda, among others, in a futile attempt to dictate the nature and character of the forthcoming people’s Free Zimbabwe peaceful march.

lndeed, Zimbabweans are not surprised at all by the rogue regime’s desperate efforts to disrupt the popular people’s Free Zimbabwe peaceful march.

The rogue regime’s behaviour is typical of similar other dictatorships that always panic whenever the people try to express their constitutional rights.

lndeed, the rogue regime’s behaviour is a strong reminder of such dictatorships under despots like Idi Amin Dada, Sani Abacha, Mobutu Sese Seko, Slobodan Milosevic, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Nicolae Ceausescu, among others.

But like those similar dictatorships the rogue regime in Zimbabwe will not be able to stop the people from expressing their popular wishes and aspirations. ln fact, like all other dictatorships, the rogue regime will eventually collapse under the heavy weight of the democratic dreams of the people of Zimbabwe.

lronically, the rogue regime claims it is a “New Dispensation”. Yet its behaviour clearly shows that it is nothing but the same old Zanu PF regime Zimbabweans have come to know and fear since 1980.

The rogue regime is continuing in the same old repressive tendencies that were used against Joshua Nkomo and PF Zapu, Edgar Tekere and ZUM; and Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC.

However, no amount of determined attempts by the rogue regime will stop the popular tide of the people’s call for democratic change in Zimbabwe.

lt is now so clear that all Zimbabweans are now so tired of suffering endlessly, and totally fed up with the painful repression from the rogue regime.

Indeed, the rogue regime must be reminded that the people of Zimbabwe are now so determined to make sure that all perpetrators of violent injustice will no longer be allowed to get away with murder, both literally and metaphorically.

lndeed, freedom may be denied temporarily, but it cannot be denied permanently. Neither can be justice be delayed forever.

So it is now just a matter of time before freedom and justice prevail in Zimbabwe.

lt is now clear to the whole world and indeed to all Zimbabweans across the entire national spectrum, that the rogue regime has failed dismally to resolve the never ending crisis in Zimbabwe.

This then explains why so many Zimbabweans from across all political divide; be it business, labour, churches, women, youths, students, social movements, civil society, among others; are all very eager to actively participate in the forthcoming people’s Free Zimbabwe peaceful march.

lndeed, the MDC is totally confident that the people’s Free Zimbabwe march on Friday 16 August will both be peaceful and a resounding success.

MDC: Change that Delivers

Daniel Molokele
MDC National Spokesperson

Post published in: Featured

The House of Assembly Has Adjourned until 27th August

The Senate Will Meet on Wednesday 14th August for Special Business

By furious fast-tracking of business on Wednesday 8th [they sat until 10.39 pm] and Thursday 9th [until 4.10 am on Friday morning] the National Assembly managed to pass, not only the Finance (No. 2) Bill and the Appropriation Supplementary (2019) Bill [the two Budget bills], but also, with amendments, the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill [see Bill Watch 43/2014 of 9th August [link]]. The House then adjourned until 27th August.

At the end of their sitting at 3.55 pm on Wednesday 7th August, Senators resolved to adjourn until Tuesday 27th August as it then seemed highly unlikely that the National Assembly would be sending the two Budget bills – or any other Bill – to the Senate in time for Senators to deal with them before the holiday weekend.

But late on Friday it was announced by Parliament that the President had summoned the Senate to re-assemble on Wednesday 14th August, two weeks earlier than expected.

Senators Recall

The President acted in terms of section 146 of the Constitution, which empowers him to alter a House’s own recess arrangements by summoning it to sit at any time “to conduct special business”.  In this case the special business cited in Parliament’s announcement of the recall, is to finalise the three Bills that were passed by the National Assembly last Thursday [in fact early Friday morning] and immediately sent to the Senate – the Finance (No. 2) Bill, the Appropriation Supplementary (2019) Bill and the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill.

Why the Hurry?

What is it about these Bills that qualifies as “special business”?

There is only one truly special element to the business facing the Senate – the need to avoid the collapse of the new monetary arrangements at midnight on Wednesday 21st August.  That collapse may occur if Part VI of the Finance (No. 2) Bill does not become law on or before the 21st August.  This deadline stems from the temporary nature of  SI 33/2019, which underpins these arrangements.  SI 33 – which was gazetted under the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act on 22nd February – is due to expire at midnight on Wednesday 21st August. Part VI [clauses 20 to 24] of the Finance (No. 2) Bill is designed to validate and regularise [“statutise” is the word used in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill] the monetary system changes enacted by the SI 33 – and, “for the avoidance of doubt”, SI 142/2019.

If the Finance (No. 2) Bill is passed on Wednesday by the Senate there will be only seven days left for the President to assent to and sign it and have it published as an Act of Parliament in the Government Gazette.

[Note previously there have been gaps after the expiry of Presidential Powers regulations – but there has been so much contention over these particular monitory measures that it is likely the government is acting to avoid more litigation].

The Senate has limited power when it comes to money bills – they cannot make amendments, but can only suggest amendments and send the Bill and suggested amendments back to the National Assembly for consideration.  This would cause a delay which the Government may well pressure the Senate to avoid.

The Senate can make amendments to the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill and it is hoped that they will take time to to reflect on the Bill in its amended form.  It still open to serious criticism.  As pointed out in our Bill Watch 44/2019 [link] there are still unconstitutional clauses.

Relevant Documents Available on the Veritas Website

Appropriation Supplementary (2019) Bill [link]

Finance (No. 2) Bill [link]

Original Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill [link]

Joint Report on the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill by  the Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs and Security Services and the Thematic Committee on Peace and Security [link]

Amendments to Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill made on 8th August [link]

Annotated Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill indicating how the amendments of 8th August fit into the text of the Bill [link].

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

Post published in: Featured

Amendments Made to the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill

At a sitting that started on 8th August and ended at 4.10 am on 9th August the National Assembly passed the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill with amendments, most of which were intended to meet objections raised by the Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC] in its adverse report on the Bill.  [The adverse report was outlined and discussed in Bill Watch 39/2019 of the 29th July [link].]  Following a summons by the President recalling the Senate from its current recess, the Senate is now due to consider the amended Bill on Wednesday 14th August, together with the Appropriation Supplementary (2019) Bill and the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

This bulletin analyses the amendments which the National Assembly made to the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill.

Relevant Documents Available on the Veritas Website

Original Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill [link]

Joint Report on the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill by  the Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs and Security Services and the Thematic Committee on Peace and Security [link]

Amendments to Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill made by the National Assembly [link]

Annotated Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill indicating how the amendments made fit into the text of the Bill [link].

The Amendments Made by the National Assembly

New Preamble:

A preamble was inserted in the Bill setting out the provisions of section 86 of the Constitution, which allows laws to limit rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Declaration of Rights.  Presumably, the preamble is intended to justify and explain the limits the Bill will impose on freedoms to assemble, demonstrate and petition Parliament.

Clause 4: Temporary prohibition of possession of weapons

This clause will give regulating authorities (senior police officers) power to ban for up to three months the carrying of weapons in public.  The clause was amended:

• to exclude traditional weapons from the list of weapons that can be banned
• to prohibit the renewal of a ban within a year after its expiry, unless a magistrate has permitted the renewal
• to require bans to be communicated through traditional leaders in the areas where they have been imposed
• to give aggrieved persons a right to appeal against a ban to a magistrate, rather than to the Minister of Home Affairs.

While the amendments improve the clause, it is still too widely phrased.  Anyone who carries a banned weapon in public will be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for six months, regardless of their justification for having the weapon.

Clause 7: Notice of processions, public demonstrations and public meetings

This clause will require convenors of public gatherings to notify the police in advance of the gatherings;  if they fail to do so they will be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for up to a year.  The PLC considered that imprisonment was too severe a punishment for the offence and that a fine would suffice.

The amendment passed by the Assembly does not meet the PLC’s objection because it will retain the punishment of imprisonment for failing to give notice of a gathering.  Moreover, it will create two further offences ‒ failing to notify the police if a gathering is postponed or if it is cancelled.

The amendment does not meet more general objections raised by the PLC, that clauses 5 to 8 of the Bill will unduly stifle freedom of assembly and association, and that clause 7, in particular, will prevent spontaneous gatherings being held.  Judgments of the Constitutional Courts of this country and South Africa have emphasised the importance of allowing spontaneous demonstrations;  the judgments are referred to in the Bill Watch mentioned at the beginning of this bulletin.

The amendment is also ineptly drafted.  It does not actually say that failing to give notice of a gathering will be a criminal offence, though by prescribing a heavy fine and imprisonment it obviously will be.  Also, the level of the fine to be imposed for the two new offences is not specified ‒ something that the Senate will have to rectify with a further amendment.

Clause 12: Civil liability of convenor of a gathering

This clause will impose civil liability on convenors for damage or injuries caused at public gatherings which have been held in contravention of the Bill.  The PLC said the clause was too broad and an invasion of freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by section 58 of the Constitution.

The amendments passed by the National Assembly will make the clause less oppressive ‒ but only very slightly.  They will make convenors responsible for loss or injury “caused by” the public gathering, not for loss or injury “arising of or occurring at” the gathering.  And they will allow co-convenors to avoid liability if they show they were not responsible for failing to give notice of the gathering.

The changes made to the clause are insignificant and it remains far too broad.

Clause 13: Powers of Police

This clause will give police officers power to control disorder at gatherings and, in its original form, the clause would have given them the right to use firearms and other weapons as a last resort.  The National Assembly passed an amendment to the clause to remove the references to firearms and weapons.  This is a welcome and necessary change, one which was not suggested by the PLC.

Clause 14: Persons to carry identity documents

This clause required every adult to carry his or her identity document in public and gave police officers power to demand that he or she produce it.  This, as the PLC rightly pointed out, was unconstitutional.

The clause has been amended so that it provides merely that if a person is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence the police can demand his or her identity document.  The person will then have to produce it within seven days at a police station. The clause is now constitutional.

The next five amendments were not suggested by the PLC and were made in the course of debate during the Committee Stage in the National Assembly.

Clause 15: Cordon and search

This clause will allow the police to establish cordons round an area in order to contain public violence within the area or to prevent violence spreading to the area.  The effect of the amendment is that cordons may be established for those purposes if it is reasonably necessary to do so in the interests of, amongst other things, “public morality, public health or regional or town planning”.  What public morality, public health or town planning have to do with containing public violence is anyone’s guess.

Clause 19: Powers of search and seizure

This clause will allow a court convicting a person of an offence involving public security to order the forfeiture of any vehicle, aircraft or vessel involved in the offence.  The amendment will limit the court’s power to vehicles, aircraft or vessels used to commit the offence or to enable it to be committed.

Clause 21: Special jurisdiction of magistrates

This clause will give magistrates jurisdiction to impose very severe sentences for offences involving public security.  The National Assembly resolved to delete a subclause giving the President power to suspend the operation of the clause.  While deleting the subclause is a good idea, magistrates’ sentencing powers under the clause are still far too great and should only be exercised by the High Court.

New clause: Repeal of POSA

The Assembly resolved to insert a new clause repealing POSA;  the Bill in its original form omitted to do this.

Schedule:

The Assembly voted to insert a provision that will allow “meetings of traditional leaders with their subjects” to be held without the need to give prior notice to the police.

Is the Bill Now Constitutional?

No it is not.  As pointed out above, the amendments have not met the PLC’s objection that clauses 5 to 8 unduly limit citizens’ constitutional right to demonstrate peacefully in public.  Clause 12 is equally repressive, by imposing excessive civil liability on convenors who fail to notify the police of forthcoming demonstrations.  The Bill still prohibits demonstrations near Parliament which, as the PLC said, unduly inhibits citizens from petitioning Parliament.

It is to be hoped that the Senate will make further amendments to protect the essential democratic freedoms of assembly and demonstration, and to render the Bill fully compliant with the Constitution.  Further amendments to that end could include the following:

• Allowing unplanned demonstrations and meetings to be held.
• For planned demonstrations and meetings, reducing the period of notice that must be given to the police beforehand:  four days should be ample notice.
• Giving a magistrate, rather than a senior police officer, the power to prohibit the holding of gatherings under clause 8(9) of the Bill.  In other words if a regulating authority (a senior police officer) believes that a gathering will cause serious disorder, he or she should approach a magistrate for an order prohibiting the gathering, and the magistrate should be obliged to consult the organisers before issuing such an order.
• Allowing organisers of public gatherings to escape civil liability for loss or damage under clause 12 of the Bill if they can show that the injury or damage would probably have occurred even if they had complied fully with all instructions given by the police.
• Giving courts a discretion to award compensation for loss or damage caused by violent public gatherings under clause 12(5) of the Bill.  At present courts must award compensation, whether victims have asked for it or not.
• Obliging the Police, whenever they use force to disperse or control a gathering, to make a full written report to the Minister with a copy to the organisers of the gathering, and obliging the Minister to lay the report before Parliament.

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

Post published in: Featured

The NSSA forensic audit report which was made public a few weeks ago is making all the headlines. There is a lot in the report that is relevant to Zimbabwe’s tech space and we will break things down over a series of articles. Let’s start with the story of Africom, the army and NSSA.

Starts with an entrepreneur who needed money

Kwanayi Kashangura founded a company most Techzim readers know: Africom. At some point in the journey, Kashangura needed to raise more capital. He approached some of the investment heavyweights in Zimbabwe which of course include the National Social Security Authority (NSSA). This is the poverty machinery agency that collects money from every worker in Zimbabwe and then gives some of them peanuts every month after they retire.

NSSA ended up with 4.5% shareholding in Africom. A funny entity that ended up with majority shareholding (51%) is a company called Fernhaven Investments. It’s a funny one because this is a company owned by the Zimbabwe military through the Ministry of Defense. Yes the conspiracy stories about the military are true.

* Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who’d reportedly been taken off suicide watch, died by suicide this weekend as he awaited trial. AG Bill Barr is “appalled,” and has called for an investigation into the circumstances of Epstein’s death. [New York Times]

* In light of Epstein’s death, his victims want prosecutors to turn their sights upon Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been described as the financier’s “protector and procurer, his girlfriend and his madam.” [Washington Post]

* Will the Supreme Court be able to delay hearing cases about expanding Second Amendment rights considering the fact that this country has quite the problem with mass shootings? Not too hopeful here. [USA Today]

* Joel Sanders, defunct firm Dewey’s former CFO, wants his criminal conviction to be tossed out and his $1 million fine to be vacated with it. [New York Law Journal]

* So much for those Biglaw raises… According to a report recently published by the ABA, lawyers’ wages have been pretty stagnant, growing slower than inflation from 2017 to 2018. [Big Law Business]

---

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.