HARARE
–
Walter
Magaya’s
claim
to
going
through
tertiary
education
has
come
under
fresh
scrutiny
after
it
emerged
the
preacher
may
have
forged
a
University
of
South
Africa
(UNISA)
diploma
which
he
submitted
at
the
High
Court
last
week
as
evidence
of
his
academic
qualifications.
The
potential
fraud
has
been
exposed
by
United
Kingdom
based
Zimbabwean
journalist
Maynard
Manyowa
of
Dug
Up
who
took
the
onus
to
contact
the
institution
to
find
out
if
the
Yadah
Stars
owner
and
business
tycoon
possessed
any
qualifications
attained
from
it.
In
return
correspondence
to
the
Dug
up
scribe,
a
UNISA
press
officer
said
Magaya’s
name
did
not
exist
anywhere
in
the
university’s
database.
“Kindly
be
advised
that
based
on
the
details
you
provided;
our
system
could
not
trace
either
a
student
number
or
date
of
birth
for
Mr.
Magaya,”
read
the
university’s
response
to
Manyowa
in
a
letter
dated
January
28,
2025.
UNISA
added,
“This
effectively
means
that
we
do
not
have
Mr.
Magaya
as
a
student
of
UNISA.”
Yadah
Chief
Executive
Officer,
Admire
Mango
did
not
respond
to
questions
sent
to
him
on
his
mobile
and
did
not
pick
calls
when
attempts
were
made
to
seek
comment
with
him
over
the
potential
scandal.
Magaya
was
in
December
last
year
disqualified
from
running
as
a
presidential
candidate
for
the
Zimbabwe
Football
Association
(ZIFA)
held
last
weekend
after
failing
to
submit
his
Ordinary
Level
certificate,
a
key
requirements
from
those
who
aspired
to
get
the
country’s
most
influential
football
job.
The
Prophetic
Healing
and
Deliverance
Ministries
founder
took
the
matter
to
the
High
Court
where
he
complained
over
his
disqualification
arguing
that
he
was
in
fact
overqualified,
a
reason
he
insisted
made
an
Ordinary
Level
qualification
inferior.
He
then
tendered
three
diplomas
in
Marketing
and
Theology
purportedly
obtained
from
UNISA
to
support
his
argument.
His
failure
to
produce
an
O’
Level
certificate
brought
more
questions
as
to
how
he
even
enrolled
at
the
renowned
college
let
alone
acquire
diplomas.
HARARE
–
Zimbabwe’s
horticulture
industry
said
it
will
take
advantage
of
regional
airfreight
hubs
to
move
produce
in
light
of
the
recent
suspension
of
the
KLM/MartinAir
service
to
Harare.
KLM
has
provided
a
link
to
Zimbabwe’s
largest
market
destination,
Amsterdam,
which
serves
as
the
gateway
for
Zimbabwean
produce
into
the
broader
EU
market
for
27
years.
After
servicing
the
route
for
close
to
three
decades,
the
Royal
Dutch
Airlines
announced
it
was
ending
its
freight
operations
to
Harare,
beginning
this
April,
due
to
operational
challenges.
Frequent
48-hour
delays,
cancellations,
and
rescheduling
have
impacted
Harare
flights
and
the
decision
to
halt
the
freight
service
“was
influenced
by
the
short
flight
leg,
lack
of
local
maintenance
facilities,
and
unstable
freight”.
In
a
statement
on
Monday,
the
Horticultural
Development
Council
(HDC)
said
while
the
suspension
of
KLM/Martin
Air
services
may
cause
some
short-term
disruptions,
the
sector
would
explore
other
routes
to
mitigate
the
looming
crisis.
“Available
route-to-market
options
include
leveraging
regional
airfreight
hubs
and
connections
through
Ethiopia,
Doha,
and
Dubai,”
said
the
council.
The
sector
however
attributed
the
flights
suspension
to
the
decline
in
the
production
of
key
export
crops
during
the
2022/23
season,
such
as
peas
and
flowers,
which
reduced
Zimbabwe’s
negotiating
power
for
scarce
cargo
space.
“This
led
to
KLM/MartinAir’s
temporary
reduction
of
flights
to
Harare
in
February
2024.
Although
flights
were
later
reinstated,
this
served
as
a
wake-up
call
for
the
industry.
“The
horticulture
industry
is
actively
engaging
with
the
Government
to
advocate
for
policy
adjustments
that
will
attract
investment
and
enhance
Zimbabwe’s
position
in
global
markets,”
said
the
council.
Total
revenue
shot
up
12.5
percent,
nearly
double
last
year’s
6
percent
growth.
While
the
country
talked
about
the
price
of
eggs
and
embraced
the
“Is
this
a
pigeon?”
meme
except
for
“a
recession,”
the
actual
economy
continued
to
thrive
and
law
firms
were
no
exception.
The
biggest
players
cashed
in
the
most,
with
the
Am
Law
50
growing
revenue
by
13.9
percent.
Meanwhile,
the
Second
Fifty
and
Second
Hundred
firms
grew
9.6
percent
and
9.9
percent,
respectively.
How
did
firms
do
so
well?
Yes,
increased
billing
rates
were
the
not-so-secret
driver
behind
this
revenue
surge
success.
Standard
rates
jumped
9.1
percent,
up
from
8.3
percent
in
2023.
The
Am
Law
1-50,
naturally,
went
even
harder,
raising
rates
10
percent
over
last
year.
The
Second
Fifty
and
Second
Hundred
firms
still
raised
their
rates,
but
at
a
more
“reasonable”
7
percent
and
6
percent,
respectively.
And
while
clients
will
complain
about
these
hikes,
the
legal
industry
was
already
undercharging
for
the
value
of
its
services
before
the
country
absorbed
a
round
of
inflation.
At
least
they
have
a
better
case
for
upping
fees
than
Netflix.
Billable
hours
also
ticked
up,
with
demand
growing
3.5
percent,
a
huge
jump
from
last
year’s
measly
0.7
percent.
Despite
all
the
new
work,
lawyer
headcount
only
went
up
1.7
percent,
meaning
firms
squeezed
out
1.9
percent
more
productivity
per
lawyer.
Meanwhile,
the
hidden
law
firm
fee
burglers
—
collection
and
lockup
—
improved.
Collection
cycles
improved
by
two
days
in
2024.
Firms
are
finally
getting
paid
faster,
thanks
to
a
mix
of
better
electronic
billing,
tighter
payment
terms,
and
a
shift
towards
transactional
work
(which
pays
out
quicker
than
drawn-out
litigation).
But
a
good
deal
of
this
new
revenue
got
sucked
up
by
total
expenses
jumping
9
percent
because
even
in
Biglaw
you’ve
got
to
spend
money
to
make
money.
Though
partners
—
again,
equity
partners
—
still
have
reason
to
smile.
Net
income
jumped
17.2
percent,
with
profits
per
equity
partner
soaring
16.9
percent.
Top
firms
cleaned
up,
posting
18.9
percent
growth
in
profits
per
partner,
while
the
smaller
firms
still
did
just
fine,
with
growth
hovering
around
12.3-12.4
percent.
Thanks
in
no
small
part
to
ever
tightening
control
over
equity
partnership
ranks
(up
a
mere
0.3
percent),
keeping
the
spoils
of
war
confined
to
an
elite
group
on
the
happy
side
of
the
velvet
rope.
So,
what’s
next
for
2025?
Will
clients
finally
push
back
on
the
ever-growing
hourly
rates?
Will
overworked
associates
actually
see
a
break?
Will
partners
ever
stop
making
ridiculous
amounts
of
money?
Not
likely.
In
2020,
the
Arizona
Supreme
Court
established
its
Alternative
Business
Structure
(ABS)
program
which
allows
nonlawyers
to
have
an
economic
interest
or
decision
making
authority
in
a
law
firm.
According
to
the
2019
Task
Force
on
the
Delivery
of
Legal
Services
report
which
recommended
the
creation
of
the
ABS
program,
there
is
a
decline
in
the
representation
of
individuals
in
the
“people
law”
sector.
The
report
claims
that
this
is
partially
attributable
due
to
the
existing
ethics
rules.
Around
that
time,
courts
in
some
states,
including
California
and
Utah,
set
up
task
forces
to
study
amending
their
professional
ethics
rules
to
address
the
“access
to
justice”
problem.
Specifically
the
lack
of
legal
services
for
low-income
individuals
and
rural
communities.
In
addition
to
establishing
ABS
ownership
models,
these
committees
considered
establishing
nonlawyer
practitioners
who
would
practice
exclusively
in
underserved
practice
areas.
But
skeptics
argued
that
the
proposals
mentioned
above
would
either
not
change
anything
or
at
best
marginally
reduce
legal
fees
mainly
because
of
overhead.
Also,
there
was
concern
that
venture
capitalists
or
tech
startups
would
use
this
opportunity
to
set
up
business
structures
where
lawyers’
professional
judgment
would
be
compromised
despite
promises
otherwise.
A
few
days
ago,
the
Big
Four
accounting
firm
KPMG
applied
for
Arizona’s
ABS
license.
While
the
ABS
committee
initially
approved
their
request,
the
Arizona
Supreme
Court
has
put
the
application
on
hold
until
KPMG
responds
to
the
court’s
request
for
additional
information.
If
approved,
KPMG
is
likely
to
use
this
opportunity
to
augment
its
existing
practice
areas
such
as
tax,
audit,
business
consulting,
and
mergers
and
acquisitions.
It
is
unlikely
they
will
expand
into
new
practice
areas
such
as
immigration,
family
law,
criminal
defense,
debt
collection,
and
eviction
matters.
Looking
at
the
court’s
ABS
directory,
the
large
number
of
these
ABS
firms
since
the
program’s
inception
in
2020
may
suggest
that
the
program
is
successful.
However,
only
a
few
firms
listed
their
contact
information
and
website.
And
some
of
these
firms
based
on
their
name
alone
suggests
that
they
handle
personal
injury
or
product
liability
cases.
Of
the
few
ABS
firms
that
have
posted
their
websites,
most
are
injury
firms.
It
is
unclear
how
many
ABS
firms
practice
in
the
“People
Law”
areas
the
task
force
report
expressed
concern
about.
Why
are
a
large
number
of
injury
firms
operating
as
an
ABS?
Some
of
these
firms
probably
have
office
managers,
administrators,
or
other
nonlawyers
who
effectively
ran
the
firm.
Being
in
an
ABS
system
would
allow
them
to
have
greater
control
and
legally
get
a
share
of
the
firm
profits
as
opposed
to
performance
bonuses.
But
the
more
pertinent
question
is
whether
allowing
nonlawyers
to
own
law
firms
will
bridge
the
access
to
justice
gap.
The
task
force
report
doesn’t
provide
an
answer.
Instead,
it
simply
states
that
the
current
ethics
rules
are
terrible
and
doing
something
is
better
than
doing
nothing.
The
basic
problem
is
that
if
most
of
your
clients
are
good
people
who
don’t
have
money,
your
law
practice
will
not
last
long.
And
now,
student
loan
servicers
will
start
collecting
and
defaulters
will
risk
wrecking
their
credit
score,
or
worse,
face
a
lawsuit.
It’s
been
five
years
since
Arizona
started
its
ABS
program.
While
it
was
designed
to
improve
access
to
justice
for
low-income
people
with
legal
problems,
it
seems
to
have
increased
access
to
justice
for
car
accident
or
tort
victims.
And
if
KPMG
gets
its
approval,
the
other
three
of
the
Big
Four
and
other
large
accounting
firms
will
likely
follow
suit,
thus
ensuring
that
Fortune
500
companies
have
better
access
to
M&A
tax
advice.
Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at
[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.
Trump
administration
slashes
jobs
for
young
lawyers
months
before
they
officially
start
sparking
a
scramble
for
jobs.
The
Justice
Department
followed
up
that
news
by
terminating
career
DOJ
lawyers
for
the
sin
of
having
worked
on
Trump’s
criminal
cases.
One
Biglaw
firm
informs
its
associates
that
they’re
not
getting
their
full
bonuses
based
on
office
[…]
The
U.S.
stock
market,
especially
the
tech-heavy
NASDAQ,
was
deeply
(no
pun
intended)
rattled
by
a
Chinese
AI
upstart
called
DeepSeek
on
Monday.
It
appears
to
have
accomplished
much
of
what
large
language
models
developed
in
the
U.S.
have,
but
at
a
fraction
of
the
cost
and
with
lower-grade
technology.
Remember
how
the
U.S.
restricts
the
sale
of
advanced
microchips
to
China
citing
security
reasons.
So
here
at
MedCity
News,
we
decided
to
do
a
head-to-head
test
with
DeepSeek
and
ChatGPT
on
a
basic
question:
“Why
is
healthcare
so
expensive
in
the
U.S.?”
The
results
were
indeed
interesting:
Both
DeepSeek
and
ChatGPT
came
up
with
10
contributing
factors,
but
they
were
not
all
the
same.
For
instance,
ChatGPT
listed
“Lack
of
Universal
Healthcare”
as
a
factor,
whereas
DeepSeek
listed
“High
Cost
of
Medical
Education”
and
“Variations
in
Pricing.”
In
general,
DeepSeek
was
more
thorough
on
the
contributing
factors
that
both
identified.
For
instance,
let’s
take
the
issue
of
management
of
chronic
diseases.
Here,
ChatGPT
merely
lists
the
high
prevalence
of
diabetes,
obesity
and
heart
failure
in
the
U.S.
and
their
ongoing
management
as
a
cause
for
high
healthcare
costs
in
America.
Meanwhile,
DeepSeek
says
the
same
thing
but
adds
that
“lifestyle
factors
contribute
to
these
conditions”
and
the
healthcare
industry
bears
the
cost
of
their
management.
So
here,
one
can
infer
that
these
diseases
may
indeed
be
preventable,
given
they
are
not
inherited.
DeepSeek
demonstrates
knowledge
of
recent
history
whereas
ChatGPT
doesn’t.
In
its
conclusion,
the
OpenAI-created
GenAI
tool
merely
states
that
“systemic
reform
in
pricing,
regulation
and
in
the
structure
of
healthcare
delivery”
is
needed
to
address
all
the
various
factors
it
lists
as
contributing
to
high
healthcare
costs.
Meanwhile,
DeepSeek
cites
the
Affordable
Care
Act
and
how
it
tried
addressing
some
issues
but
that
in
general
the
issue
of
high
healthcare
costs
remains
“a
complex
and
politically
charged
challenge.”
For
more
differences
and
a
letter
grade
offered
to
each
engine,
view
this
video
below.
*
KPMG’s
application
to
practice
law
in
Arizona
back
on
hold.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Clarence
Thomas
rails
against
judges
ignoring
precedent
because
consistency
is
the
hobgoblin
of
ethical
people.
[Guardian]
*
Lil
Durk’s
lawyer
drawing
a
lot
of
out-of-court
attention.
[Yahoo]
*
Trump
tells
federal
workers
that
he’ll
give
them
a
buyout
if
they
leave
their
jobs
except
he
doesn’t
have
any
funds
to
do
that
and
it’s
illegal
to
offer
a
buyout
that
size.
[CNN]
*
Bob
Menendez
sentencing
slated
for
today.
[Reuters]
*
A
deep
dive
into
the
upcoming
judicial
nomination
calendar
covering
who’s
retiring
and
who’s
going
to
replace
them.
[Balls
and
Strikes]
Listen,
I
did
not
want
to
do
jury
duty.
But
I
remember
it
was
probably
seven
years
after
‘Legally
Blonde,’
I
got
called
for
jury
duty
and
it
was
in
Beverly
Hills.
I
thought,
‘Surely
they’re
not
gonna
pick
me.’
They
picked
me
for
a
long
trial,
y’all.
It
was
probably
two
weeks.
It
was
two
solid
weeks
every
day
going
in.
And
then
we
went
to
deliberation
and
so
at
the
very
end
they
say,
‘Okay,
well
somebody
in
this
group
has
to
be
the
foreman.’
And
they
all
unanimously
are
like,
‘Her.’
They
were
like,
‘You
went
to
law
school.’
I
was
like,
‘Y’all
this
is
really
upsetting.
I
definitely
did
not
go
to
law
school,
I
didn’t
finish
college.’
I
played
a
lawyer
in
a
movie
once
but
they
fully
made
me
the
foreman
and
I
started
realizing…
people
don’t
know
much
about
the
law.
—
Reese
Witherspoon,
star
of
the
“Legally
Blonde”
film
franchise,
in
comments
given
during
an
appearance
on
“The
Graham
Norton
Show,”
where
she
spoke
about
her
experience
serving
as
a
jury
foreperson
with
a
group
who
mistakenly
believed
that
she
was
a
real
lawyer
who
had
attended
law
school
thanks
to
her
acting
roles.
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Grab
‘Em
By
The
Executive
Power:
Here’s
how
Trump
is
circumventing
the
Constitution.
No
Truth
In
Television:
Count
each
time
Alina
Habba
says
something
wrong!
Diversity
Lab
Is
Still
In
Business:
Diversity
is
still
going.
What
Is
It
Like,
Hard?:
You’ll
guess
who
was
selected
as
Jury
Foreman!
Junior
Blues:
Alternative
legal
providers
could
push
juniors
out
of
their
jobs.
The
Trump
administration
continues
pumping
out
executive
action
at
the
pace
rivaling
a
trashy
romance
novel
pulp
house.
And,
like
the
trashiest
of
romance
novels,
each
installment
makes
you
go,
“Oh…
I
don’t
think
you’re
supposed
to
do
it
that
way.”
And
“I’m
pretty
sure
that
would
hurt.”
The
latest
vector
of
government
chaos
came
in
the
form
of
an
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
memo
vaguely
requiring
a
complete
spending
freeze
on
all
federal
public
loans,
grants,
and
other
assistance
by
5
p.m.
tonight.
Acting
Director
Matt
Vaeth’s
memo
—
which
no
one
seriously
believes
he
wrote
—
cited
the
more
than
$3
trillion
spent
last
year
on
“Federal
financial
assistance,
such
as
grants
and
loans”
before
instructing
agencies
that
the
administration
wants
spending
limited
to
its
goals
including
“ending
‘wokeness’
and
the
weaponization
of
government,
promoting
efficiency
in
government,
and
Making
America
Healthy
Again.”
“The
use
of
Federal
resources
to
advance
Marxist
equity,
transgenderism,
and
green
new
deal
social
engineering
policies
is
a
waste
of
taxpayer
dollars
that
does
not
improve
the
day-to-day
lives
of
those
we
serve,”
seems
like
the
4chan
post
of
a
lunatic,
but
is
instead
an
edict
from
the
federal
organ
overseeing
public
funding.
In
case
you’re
wondering,
the
1974
Impoundment
Control
Act
(ICA),
yet
another
good
governance
statute
rooted
in
America’s
Nixon
hangover,
explicitly
bars
refusing
to
spend
congressional
appropriations
like
this.
But
once
and
future
OMB
General
Counsel
Mark
Paoletta
believes
the
power
of
the
purse
is
more
of
a
suggestion
and
that
presidents
can
take
money
allocated
by
Congress
and
say,
“Nah,
I’m
good.
I’ll
keep
this
one.”
But
Paoletta
is
riding
high
on
America’s
most
powerful
hallucinogen:
the
Unitary
Executive
Theory:
The
power
of
impoundment
is
one
such
executive
power
vested
in
the
President
alone
by
Article
II
of
the
Constitution.
As
discussed
below,
this
power
stems
from
the
President’s
conclusive
and
preclusive
authorities
the
Court
sets
out
in
the Trump
v.
United
States opinion.
Remember
when
John
Roberts
tried
to
play
off
Trump
v.
United
States
as
though
it
wouldn’t
be
read
to
bestow
monarchical
powers?
Good
times!
Paoletta
argues
that
“If
the
President
can
decide
which
laws
to
enforce,
he
can
decide
which
funds
to
spend.”
A
cute
analogy
to
be
sure,
but
it’s
much
more
like
telling
the
landlord
you
don’t
believe
in
rent
because
of
woke.
Sure,
you
can
do
that,
but
the
consequences
are
going
to
catch
up
to
you
fast.
In
A
Primer
on
the
Impoundment
Control
Act,
Professor
Zachary
Price
blows
up
this
fantasy.
The
ICA
explains
that
if
the
president
tries
to
withhold
funds
altogether,
the
executive
has
to
notify
Congress,
which
then
has
45
days
to
agree.
If
Congress
says
no
—
or
does
nothing
—
the
funds
must
be
released.
If
the
executive
branch
is
merely
trying
to
delay
spending
—
the
excuse
emerging
throughout
the
day
—
it
must
also
report
to
Congress
first
and
abide
by
some
key
restrictions:
Though
earlier
versions
of
the
statute
allowed
a
broader
range
of
deferrals,
the
ICA
today
allows
deferrals
only
“to
provide
for
contingencies,”
“to
achieve
savings
made
possible
by
or
through
changes
in
requirements
or
greater
efficiency
of
operations,”
or
“as
specifically
provided
by
law.”
The
upshot
is
that,
absent
specific
statutory
authority,
executive
officials
are
not
supposed
to
delay
spending
based
on
disagreement
with
the
policy
underlying
it;
they
can
instead
make
deferrals
only
to
address
practical
obstacles
or
to
employ
funds
more
efficiently.
As
explained
below,
however,
the
scope
of
any
authority
to
delay
spending
for
“programmatic”
rather
than
“policy”
reasons
has
emerged
as
a
recurrent
point
of
controversy.
Of
course,
asking
Trump
to
follow
statutory
procedure
is
like
asking
a
puppy
to
do
your
taxes
—
a
lot
of
chaos
and
incontinence.
Paoletta’s
batshit
read
that
Article
II
gives
the
President
unilateral
authority
to
ignore
congressional
appropriations
doesn’t
even
make
sense
in
the
context
of
the
president’s
constitutional
role
in
signing
or
vetoing
statutes.
If
Congress
approves
spending
on
a
specific
appropriation,
the
president
vetoes
it,
and
Congress
overrides
that
veto,
Paoletta
would
say
the
president
could
just
ignore
it
anyway.
In
fact,
presidents
tried
to
assert
a
power
to
halt
specific
projects
while
giving
Congress
the
power
to
override
that
veto
—
a
concession
Paoletta
isn’t
making
—
and
the
Supreme
Court
laughed
and
laughed.
It
is
also
worth
noting
that
Congress
attempted
to
establish
an
additional
form
of
impoundment
authority
in
the Line
Item
Veto
Act
of
1996.
That
statute
allowed
presidents
to
cancel
certain
spending
items
within
five
days
of
an
appropriation’s
enactment,
subject
to
a
congressional
override
through
expedited
new
legislation.
The
Supreme
Court,
however,
held
in Clinton
v.
New
York that
this
cancellation
power
amounted
to
an
unconstitutional
line-item
veto
(meaning
a
power
to
veto
particular
clauses
in
a
law
rather
than
the
bill
as
a
whole).
Although
the
Court
acknowledged
the
president’s
“traditional
authority
to
decline
to
spend
appropriated
funds,”
it
rejected
the
government’s
argument
that
this
practice
supported
the
Line
Item
Veto
Act’s
cancellation
power.
Unlike
all
prior
statutes
invoked
by
the
government,
this
one,
the
majority
reasoned,
gave
“the
President
the
unilateral
power
to
change
the
text
of
duly
enacted
statutes.”
Freezing
federal
disbursements
hurts
real
people
—
states,
businesses,
and
individuals
waiting
on
grants
and
loans.
These
delays
ripple
through
the
economy,
affecting
everything
from
infrastructure
projects
to
education
funding.
“And
while
Paoletta
couldn’t
care
less
about
the
human
fallout,
Congress
—
well,
at
least
the
members
who
occasionally
remember
they
represent
real
people
—
might.”
