Leveraging A Multigenerational Workforce To Build Stronger Law Firm Culture – Above the Law

Getty
Images

In
this
session,
I
sit
down
with
Phil
Gafka
of
LEAP
Associates
to
explore
how
law
firms
can
strengthen
performance,
retention,
and
engagement
by
embracing
a
multigenerational
workforce.

With
decades
of
leadership
and
coaching
experience,
Phil
shares
practical
insights
on
aligning
values,
setting
expectations,
and
creating
cultures
where
lawyers
and
staff
can
thrive
together.


Culture
Is
Not
a
Statement.
It
Is
a
Daily
Practice

Law
firms
often
talk
about
values
such
as
balance,
flexibility,
and
respect.
Phil
explains
that
culture
becomes
real
only
when
those
values
are
reflected
in
everyday
decisions.
When
expectations
around
workload,
compensation,
and
availability
align
with
stated
priorities,
trust
grows
naturally.


Why
How
You
Work
Matters
as
Much
as
What
You
Do

Strategy
sets
direction,
but
culture
determines
execution.
Phil
and
Steve
discuss
how
the
way
a
firm
operates
has
a
direct
impact
on
morale,
collaboration,
and
long
term
results.


Career
Alignment
Starts
With
Cultural
Fit

Every
lawyer
brings
unique
goals,
motivations,
and
priorities
to
their
career.
Phil
emphasizes
the
importance
of
understanding
whether
a
firm’s
culture
aligns
with
what
you
want
long
term.



Watch
the
Full
Conversation
HERE




Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at 
[email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at 
www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.

Lawyers Shouldn’t Perform Favors For Clients And Expect Additional Work – Above the Law

Lawyers
and
clients
often
develop
years-long
relationships
during
which
clients
and
lawyers
cultivate
connections
that
often
transcend
the
traditional
attorney-client
framework. During
this
relationship,
clients
may
ask
for
favors
in
the
form
of
favorable
billing
terms
or
other
advantages
that
the
lawyer
is
uniquely
able
to
provide. Although
it
is
acceptable
to
perform
such
favors
for
clients,
lawyers
should
not
do
so
under
the
assumption
that
it
will
result
in
additional
work.

Perhaps
the
most
common
favor
a
lawyer
will
do
for
a
client
is
to
take
a
given
matter
on
favorable
terms
with
the
expectation
that
additional
work
will
follow. However,
clients
do
not
always
remember
the
lawyer
who
gave
them
favorable
terms
when
there
is
an
additional
matter
that
needs
attention. Earlier
in
my
career,
I
worked
on
a
very
small
matter
for
a
long-term
client. The
matter
was
worth
barely
four
figures,
so
I
was
surprised
that
the
plaintiff
was
able
to
secure
a
lawyer
who
made
it
worth
it
to
pursue
the
claim
in
court.

During
the
course
of
my
relationship
with
plaintiff’s
lawyer,
I
discovered
that
this
attorney
had
taken
the
case
since
the
plaintiff
was
a
somewhat
large
company
in
his
area,
and
the
attorney
felt
that
taking
this
one
matter
on
favorable
terms
could
lead
to
additional
work. 
This
lawyer
eventually
told
me
he
saw
the
client
had
another,
much
bigger
lawsuit,
and
this
client
had
decided
to
use
a
different
lawyer
for
that
case. This
adversary
of
mine
expressed
disappointment
at
this
outcome,
and
I
could
relate
to
what
this
attorney
experienced. I
too
had
been
disappointed
before
when
clients
did
not
make
good
on
promises
to
refer
larger
matters
to
me
in
exchange
for
favorable
terms
on
a
smaller
case.

Throughout
my
career,
I
have
seen
lawyers
perform
all
kinds
of
favors
for
clients
that
are
not
readily
connected
to
an
existing
representation. It
is
common,
for
instance,
for
lawyers
to
offer
internships
or
employment,
to
friends
or
relatives
of
people
who
refer
them
work. I
am
aware
of
two
instances
during
my
career
when
this
was
likely
the
case,
and
in
one
instance,
this
resulted
in
the
person
receiving
a
relatively
hard-to-get
summer
position. Usually,
it
is
harmless
for
a
lawyer
to
give
an
unpaid
internship
to
someone
during
the
summer,
but
if
the
firm
needs
to
pay
for
the
employment,
or
if
the
favored
person
takes
the
place
of
a
competent
hire,
this
could
pose
problems.

Sometimes,
clients
may
ask
lawyers
to
perform
work
pro
bono
for
favored
entities. Indeed,
when
I
was
an
associate
in
Biglaw,
one
of
my
colleagues
was
specifically
told
that
a
pro
bono
matter
was
especially
important
because
it
was
being
performed
as
a
favor
for
a
large
client. At
other
times,
client
favors
can
be
rather
small. Several
times
during
my
career,
clients
have
asked
me
to
secure
papers
at
various
courthouses
the
next
time
I
had
a
court
appearance
at
a
given
location. There
was
almost
no
extra
time
I
needed
to
devote
to
these
favors
since
I
was
already
at
the
courthouse,
and
the
fees
needed
to
procure
the
requested
records
were
minimal.

All
told,
it
is
common
for
lawyers
to
complete
favors
for
clients,
and
each
lawyer
needs
to
weigh
the
benefits
and
costs
of
each
favor
before
agreeing
to
perform
a
given
task. However,
lawyers
should
not
expect
to
receive
additional
work
from
clients
simply
by
completing
favors,
since
clients
may
not
factor
this
when
selecting
counsel
for
additional
matters.




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@rothman.law.

Mr. Worldwide: Artist Prevails In Fierce Battle Over The Copyright Act’s Reclamation Right – Above the Law

Congress,
way
back
when,
astutely
recognized
that
an
artist
entering
into
an
initial
contract
for
an
album,
song,
or
story
often
gets
the
bummest
of
bum
deals.
It
further
acknowledged
that
the
record
label
or
studio
or
other
corporate
demogorgon
on
the
other
side
of
that
initial
contract
often
benefits
excessively,
gobbling
up
the
creative
work
and
all
of
its
copyrights
and
making
most
of
the
money
when
that
work
becomes
a
success. 

With
these
things
bouncing
around
in
its
hive
mind,
Congress
took
action,
building
Section
304
into
the
1909
Copyright
Act
and
Section
203
into
the
current
Act.
Both
sections
seek
to
remedy
the
grave
imbalance
in
bargaining
positions
between
budding
artists
and
corporate
monoliths
by
ensuring
that
artists
get
a
second
chance,
contractually
speaking,
to
see
the
fruits
of
their
artistic
labor. 

Section
203,
the
modern
statute,
states
that
35
years
after
that
initial
transfer,
at
which
point
the
record
label
has
drunk
deeply
at
the
profit
trough,
the
artist
can
serve
a
written
notice
and
reclaim
the
copyrights
for
the
work,
at
which
point
he
or
she
can
seek
out
a
more
remunerative
and
fair
agreement.
And
Section
304
states
that
the
grant
may
be
terminated
at
any
time
during
a
period
of
five
years
beginning
at
the
end
of
56
years
from
the
date
copyright
was
originally
secured.

As
you
might
imagine,
these
provisions,
written
to
protect
and
empower
artists,
make
the
record
labels
furious,
and
those
labels
have
gone
all-out
to
frustrate
the
law’s
purpose.
We
can
fill
whole
columns
with
these
exploits,
but
let’s
concentrate
here
on
one
of
the
most
insidious:
the
averment
that
when
an
artist
reclaims
their
rights
under
Sections
203/304,
they
reclaim
only
their
rights
in
the
U.S.,
with
the
labels
keeping
their
claws
in
the
rest
of
the
rights
around
the
world.

Now,
this
argument
makes
little
sense
when
you
consider
that
when
an
artist
enters
into
that
initial
grant,
it
is
almost
always
a
global
grant,
assigning
rights
for
the
copyrighted
work
to
be
exploited
worldwide.
So
when
an
artist
terminates
that
grant,
the
artist
ipso
facto,
would
recover
those
very
same
global
rights.
This
result
is
cemented
by
the
notion
that
these
agreements
tend
to
be
entered
into
in
the
U.S.
between
U.S.
artists
and
U.S.
labels
and
cover
songs
created
in
the
U.S.
and
covered
by
U.S.
copyright
law.
But
the
labels,
undaunted,
claim
that
foreign
copyright
law,
in
large
part,
should
still
apply
to
limit
the
artist’s
reclamation
rights
as
they
pertain
to
global
transfer
agreements.
And
a
recent
appellate
decision
rejecting
that
argument
(a
result
that
at
least

one
astute
lawyer

forecast
less
than
a
year
ago)
has
them
gnashing
their
teeth
in
anguish.

Cyril
Vetter
co-wrote
the
song,
Double
Shot.
He
transferred
global
rights
away
back
in
the
day
to
a
company
that
transferred
them
to
Resnick
Music
Group
(RMG). 
This
transfer
was
entered
into
in
the
U.S.
and
had
no
connection
to
anywhere
else
in
the
world
other
than
it
included
a
global
transfer.
When
Vetter
served
a
notice
terminating
this
global-rights
transfer,
and
seeking
to
recover
all
rights
transferred
thereunder,
RMG
refused
to
honor
the
transfer
for
any
country
other
than
the
U.S. 

Why?
The
label’s
primary
argument
hinged
on
language
in
Section
304(c)(6)(E),
which
states
that
“[t]ermination
of
a
grant
under
this
subsection
affects
only
those
rights
covered
by
the
grant
that
arise
under
this
title,
and
in
no
way
affects
rights
arising
under
any
other
Federal,
State,
or
foreign
laws.”
The
label
employed
a
facile
reading
of
the
foregoing
to
argue
that
because
the
rights
“arising
under
this
title”
in
no
way
affect
rights
“arising
under”
foreign
law,
the
termination
of
the
grant
does
not
apply
to
the
exploitation
of
the
song
in
other
countries. 

But,
as
the
Fifth
Circuit
pointed
out
in
ruling
for
the
artist,
this
zany
position
“was
premised
on
the
theory
that
there
are
multiple
and
separate
copyright
interests
in
each
country,
rather
than
a
single
overarching
international
master
copyright
that
each
country
is
required
to
honor.”

Vetter
v.
Resnik
,
No.
25-30108,
2026
WL
82842,
(5th
Cir.
Jan.
12,
2026).
Make
no
mistake,
the
labels
invented
this
bizarro
copyright-multiverse
solely
to
stymie
artists
in
recovering
their
global
rights.
It
exists
in
no
other
context.
To
the
contrary,
it
is
almost
universally
accepted
that
one
copyright
is
created
under
U.S.
law
once
an
artist
fixes
their
work
in
a
tangible
medium
and
other
countries
honor
that
copyright
via
various
treaties,
chiefly
the
Berne
Convention.
And
it
is
also
settled
law
that
questions
of
copyright
ownership
for
works
created
in
the
U.S.
by
U.S.
artists
are
covered
by
U.S.
law. 

A
close
read
of
the
language
exposes
the
speciousness
of
the
label’s
argument.
The
word
“arise”
means
“to
originate
from
a
source”
and
the
“rights”
that
arise
under
the
Copyright
Act
are
the
exclusive
rights
set
forth
in
Section
106,
which
include
the
exclusive
right
to
reproduce,
distribute,
and
perform,
and
the
right
to
reclaim
those
rights
after
the
statutory
period
expures.
The
artist
who
transfers
those
rights
away
can
later
recapture
them
without
regard
for
where
those
rights
are
exercised.
So,
if
the
initial
contract
includes
the
global
right
to
exercise
those
copyrights,
a
termination
recovers
the
global
rights. 

Now
there
is
a
general
rule
that
the
Copyright
Act
does
not
apply
extraterritorially
when
it
comes
to
copyright

infringement
,
and
the
labels
have
done
well
in
the
past
to
conflate 
the
issues
of
“ownership”
and
“infringement”
in
their
briefs.
But
the

Vetter

court
rightfully
swept
those
arguments
away,
adroitly
recognizing
that
ownership
and
infringement
are
two
separate
copyright
law
concepts,
with
ownership
established
by
the
laws
of
the
country
of
creation
and
infringement
being
addressed
by
the
laws
of
the
country
in
which
the
infringement
occurred.

The
result
is
unsurprising
because
the
Supreme
Court
already,
in

Kirtsaeng
v.
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
Inc.
,
looked
at
similar
“under
this
title”
language
in
the
Copyright
Act
and
found
there
to
be
no
geographic
limitation.
There,
copies
of
works
created
“under”
the
Copyright
Act
were
copies
created
anywhere
in
the
world,
not
just
the
U.S.
So
true
here,
as
Vetter’s
ownership
rights
arose
under
the
Copyright
Act
and
his
termination
of
a
transfer
of
that
ownership
returned
to
him
that
ownership,
with
no
geographic
limitation.

Thus,
the
first
appellate
court
to
review
the
Copyright
Act’s
reclamation
provisions
has
concluded,
convincingly,
that
the
provisions,
enacted
to
assist
artists
in
reaping
a
bit
more
of
their
creations’
benefits,
covers
the
“worldwide”
portion
of
worldwide
transfers
and
includes
no
geographic
carve-out
for
the
rest
of
the
planet.
2026
will
thus
be
the
year
that
these
particular
artists’
rights
shrug
off
their
cartographic
limitations,
and
artists
will
benefit,
as
Congress
intended.




Scott
Alan
Burroughs,
Esq.
practices
with 
Doniger
/
Burroughs
,
an
art
law
firm
based
in
Venice,
California.
He
represents
artists
and
content
creators
of
all
stripes
and
writes
and
speaks
regularly
on
copyright
issues.
He
can
be
reached
at 
[email protected],
and
you
can
follow
his
law
firm
on
Instagram: 
@veniceartlaw.

Mawere to be buried in SA on Monday


Mutumwa
Mawere

Mawere
(66),
who
held
South
African
citizenship,
died
in
Johannesburg
on
January
15
from
complications
linked
to
a
stroke
he
suffered
in
2024.

The
decision
to
bury
him
in
South
Africa
follows
a
legal
dispute
between
the
paternal
and
maternal
sides
of
his
family
over
his
final
resting
place.

The
legal
disagreements
centred
on
a
disagreement
between
the
Maweres’
representatives,
close
paternal
relatives,
and
Ms
Irene
Machiri,
who
represented
the
maternal
side
of
the
family.

Sources
close
to
the
matter
indicate
that
the
two
factions
were
split
over
the
final
resting
place
of
the
tycoon.

The
Maweres
strongly
advocated
for
the
repatriation
of
the
businessman’s
remains
to
his
country
of
birth,
Zimbabwe,
while
Ms
Machiri
reportedly
favoured
a
burial
at
Fourways
Memorial
Park,
a
private
cemetery
in
South
Africa.

The
matter
was
taken
to
court
as
thr
dispute
escalated.

Yesterday,
the
Johannesburg
High
Court
ruled
that
Mawere
should
be
buried
in
South
Africa.

The
court’s
ruling
cleared
the
way
for
funeral
arrangements
that
had
initially
been
scheduled
for
today
(Friday)
to
proceed
on
Monday
in
Johannesburg.

Speaking
on
behalf
of
Zororo-Phumulani,
the
funeral
services
provider
known
for
managing
high-profile
funerals,
chief
executive
officer
Mr
Oliver
Mufudze
said
the
company
is
being
guided
by
the
family
as
it
prepares
to
give
the
businessman
a
befitting
sendoff.

“Our
role
is
to
serve
the
family
with
dignity,
sensitivity
and
respect
during
this
difficult
time,”
Mr
Mufudze
said.
“We
are
working
closely
with
the
family
to
ensure
that
Mr
Mawere
is
laid
to
rest
in
a
manner
that
honours
his
life
and
fully
reflects
the
wishes
of
the
many
lives
that
were
touched
by
his
generosity.”

The
Zororo-Phumulani
CEO
added
that
the
company’s
logistics
team
was
already
on
the
ground
and
working
around
the
clock
to
deliver
a
dignified
and
seamless
service
in
line
with
the
agreed
family
arrangements.

Mawere
was
a
towering
figure
in
Zimbabwean
and
South
African
business
circles,
with
interests
spanning
mining,
manufacturing
and
banking.

Educated
in
Zimbabwe,
Eswatini,
the
United
Kingdom
and
the
United
States,
he
held
impressive
academic
qualifications
including
a
BSc
in
Economics,
an
MSc
in
Management
and
an
MBA
in
Finance
and
Investments,
alongside
several
professional
certifications.



Herald
Correspondent

Post
published
in:

Featured

Chamisa returns to politics, launches ‘Agenda 2026’ citizens’ movement

HARARE

Former
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change
leader
Nelson
Chamisa
has
formally
returned
to
frontline
politics,
unveiling
what
he
called
Agenda
2026,
a
broad-based
citizens’
movement
aimed
at
unseating
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
government
and
delivering
what
he
described
as
a
“fresh
start”
for
Zimbabwe.

Speaking
at
a
press
briefing
on
Wednesday
after
nearly
two
years
out
of
active
politics,
Chamisa
said
Zimbabwe
was
facing
a
“crisis
of
governance”
marked
by
disputed
elections,
economic
collapse,
corruption
and
institutional
decay.

“I
left
the
dance
floor
hoping
somebody
else
would
occupy
it,
but
it
has
remained
vacant.
I
have
seen
it
fit
to
return
to
dance
for
my
nation,
for
the
citizens
and
for
the
future,”
Chamisa
said.

He
accused
the
government
of
presiding
over
rigged
elections,
state
capture
and
the
erosion
of
citizens’
dignity,
saying
the
promise
of
independence
had
been
“hijacked”.

“Zimbabwe
is
gripped
by
disputed
national
processes,
deepening
economic
hardships,
political
uncertainty,
social
collapse
and
moral
decay,”
he
said.

Chamisa
said
that
Agenda
2026
was
not
a
political
party,
but
a
citizens’
movement
designed
to
transcend
party,
tribe,
race
and
class.

“This
is
not
about
positions
or
personalities.
It
is
about
purpose.
It
is
a
movement
by
the
citizens,
for
the
citizens
and
from
the
citizens,”
he
said.

With
no
clear
form
or
structure
for
his
movement,
Chamisa’s
approach
will
revive
lingering
scepticism
among
critics
who
argue
that
his
leadership
style
remains
overly
personalised.

As
leader
of
the
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change,
Chamisa
deliberately
avoided
formal
structures
under
what
he
termed
“strategic
ambiguity”,
a
strategy
supporters
later
blamed
for
leaving
the
party
exposed
to
capture
by
self-styled
secretary
general
Sengezo
Tshabangu.
That
episode
culminated
in
the
recall
of
dozens
of
CCC
MPs
and
councillors
and
Chamisa’s
eventual
decision
to
abandon
the
party
altogether.

His
renewed
insistence
on
a
loosely
defined
“citizens’
movement”,
rather
than
a
clearly
constituted
organisation
with
defined
roles,
institutions
and
lines
of
authority,
will
raise
questions
over
whether
he
has
fully
internalised
the
lessons
of
the
CCC’s
collapse,
or
whether
the
emphasis
remains
on
mass
mobilisation
around
a
central
figure
rather
than
durable
institution-building.

He
said
the
movement
would
focus
on
five
key
pillars:
Building
a
new
national
consensus;
reclaiming
citizen
agency
and
leadership,
preparing
for
a
future
citizens’
government;
driving
a
“moral
revolution”
and
re-engaging
the
international
community

Chamisa
said
unity
would
be
built
“organically
from
below”
through
dialogue,
consultation
and
consensus,
rather
than
elite-driven
politics.

“We
fall
together,
we
rise
together.
There
is
no
separate
destiny
for
a
few,”
he
said.

Chamisa
placed
strong
emphasis
on
Zimbabweans
in
the
diaspora,
describing
them
as
the
“backbone”
of
the
economy
and
promising
them
a
central
role
in
the
movement’s
structures
and
global
advocacy
campaign.

“Our
diaspora
will
no
longer
be
observers.
They
will
be
active
participants
and
ambassadors
of
change,”
he
said.

Responding
to
questions
from
journalists,
Chamisa
dismissed
suggestions
that
Zanu
PF
had
re-mobilised
during
his
absence.

“Zanu
PF
has
actually
demobilised.
It
is
factionalised,
in
debris.
Many
are
still
there
in
body,
but
their
spirit
is
gone.
They
have
joined
the
rest
of
the
citizens,”
he
said.

He
rejected
calls
to
“move
on”
from
the
disputed
2023
elections,
insisting
unresolved
electoral
flaws
must
still
be
corrected.

“If
we
don’t
fix
what’s
broken,
we
will
never
get
it
right,”
he
said.

Chamisa
said
his
call
for
forgiveness
did
not
mean
repeating
past
political
mistakes
or
reviving
former
alliances.

“Only
a
dog
feeds
on
its
vomit.
We
are
not
dogs,”
he
said.

He
also
dismissed
Zanu
PF’s
reported
plan
to
extend
Mnangagwa’s
second
and
final
term
from
2028
to
2030
as
“foolishness”,
saying
Zimbabweans
did
not
support
it
and
that
the
real
issue
was
the
collapse
of
constitutional
order.

“There
is
no
constitution
in
this
country.
It
has
been
shredded,”
Chamisa
said.

Chamisa
said
the
next
six
months
would
focus
on
grassroots
organisation,
legal
and
institutional
work,
rather
than
rallies,
with
a
detailed
programme
of
action
to
be
announced
later.

“The
journey
to
a
new
great
Zimbabwe
does
not
begin
when
we
become
government.
It
begins
with
the
foundation
we
lay
today,”
he
said.

Transcript: Nelson Chamisa announces launch of ‘citizens’ movement,’ says not a political party


Transcript
of
Nelson
Chamisa’s
address
to
the
media
on
January
23,
2026,
to
announce
his
return
to
active
politics:

Good
afternoon
ladies
and
gentlemen,
members
of
the
press
corps,
fellow
citizens.

I
come
to
you
at
a
critical
moment
in
the
history
of
our
country.

Possibly
after
two
years
of
having
left
the
dance
floor,
hoping
that
somebody
else
would
occupy
it,
I
now
see
that
no-one
has
chosen
to
do
so.
The
dance
floor
is
vacant.
I
have
therefore
seen
it
fit
to
return
to
the
floor,
to
dance
for
my
nation,
to
dance
for
the
citizens,
and
to
dance
for
the
future.

Our
nation
faces
a
pivotal
moment,
a
critical
juncture
in
its
history.
The
promise
of
independence
has
not
translated
into
the
rapid,
accelerated
transformation
we
hoped
for.
We
have
not
seen
transformation.
That
promise
has
been
hijacked.

We
have
not
seen
shared
prosperity.
We
have
not
seen
the
dignity
promised
to
citizens.
We
have
not
seen
the
sovereignty
that
was
pledged.
We
have
not
seen
opportunities
for
all.

Instead,
Zimbabwe
is
gripped
by
a
disputed
national
processes
cycle,
deepening
economic
hardship,
political
uncertainty,
social
collapse
and
moral
decay.
Government
services
and
support
systems
have
been
partisanised

delivered
along
political
lines.

We
are
witnessing
unfolding
instability,
heightened
national
anxiety
and
eroded
public
trust.

Zimbabwe
has
endured
decades
of
crisis

political
intolerance,
division
imposed
on
citizens
because
of
political
differences.
We
continue
to
suffer
from
a
debilitating
legitimacy
crisis
born
out
of
rigged
elections,
institutionalised
intolerance,
sponsored
hate,
endemic
corruption,
abuse
of
the
law,
the
hijacking
of
alternatives,
and
ubiquitous
state
capture.

For
Zimbabweans
in
the
diaspora,
life
has
not
been
easy.
The
struggle
is
real.
Many
continue
to
suffer
in
abject
poverty.
Immigration
challenges,
harassment,
embarrassment,
humiliation
and
detention
have
become
part
of
daily
life.

Yet,
concurrently,
we
have
witnessed
the
resilience
of
Zimbabweans,
a
resilience
that
remains
unbroken.
From
our
towns
to
our
villages,
in
factories,
industries,
in
the
diaspora
and
at
home,
the
call
is
clear:
change
must
happen.

Zimbabwe
must
reset.
Zimbabwe
needs
a
fresh
start.

This
is
the
moment,
a
moment
for
a
new
beginning
anchored
on
transformation,
unity,
hope
and
purposeful
action.

The
crisis
in
Zimbabwe
is
of
national
proportion.
It
is
a
crisis
of
governance.
A
leadership
crisis
characterised
by
disputed
processes,
discredited
elections
and
a
stolen
mandate
producing
instability,
shortages,
desperation
and
division.

Even
as
I
stepped
away
from
the
dance
floor,
we
have
been
working
tirelessly
behind
the
scenes.
Through
SADC
and
other
global
platforms,
we
have
been
building
solidarity
for
the
people
of
Zimbabwe.

We
must
be
clear:
a
false
fight
breeds
a
false
victory.
The
entry
point
to
Zimbabwe’s
crisis
must
be
properly
defined.
It
is
a
governance
crisis,
a
breakdown
of
constitutional
order,
national
consensus
and
governmental
legitimacy.

Zimbabwe
has
endured
vicious
cycles
of
disputed
elections,
unresolved
tensions
and
recurring
instability.
We
have
a
disputed
government,
disputed
mandates
and
a
disputed
constitutional
order.
Citizens
are
treated
as
subjects,
stripped
of
dignity,
sovereignty
and
collective
security.

For
the
past
two
years,
we
have
engaged
SADC
because
domestic
legal
avenues
were
blocked.
Even
if
it
takes
five,
ten
or
twenty
years,
disputed
elections
must
be
corrected.
If
we
do
not
fix
what
is
broken,
we
will
never
get
it
right.

Zimbabwe
needs
a
new
way.

The
challenge
of
our
politics
has
been
an
alternative
built
on
a
rotten,
compromised
and
exhausted
past,
a
past
that
has
stifled
the
emergence
of
a
credible,
authentic
alternative.

Old
ways
have
produced
entitlement,
fatigue,
corruption
and
a
culture
of
chasing
titles
instead
of
transformation.

That
is
why
Agenda
2026
represents
a
clean
break
from
the
mistakes
of
the
past,
a
commitment
to
rebuild
Zimbabwe
on
democratic
values,
constitutionalism,
competence,
compassion
and
ethical
leadership.

This
agenda
rejects
fear,
violence,
corruption,
greed
and
exclusion.
It
embraces
accountability,
service
and
citizen
leadership.

This
is
not
about
personalities
or
political
parties.
It
is
about
citizens.
It
is
about
purpose,
not
positions.
Renewal,
not
recycling.

First:
Building
a
new
national
consensus.
A
consensus
built
by
citizens,
for
citizens
and
about
citizens.
Unity
cannot
be
imposed;
it
must
grow
organically
through
dialogue,
consultation
and
shared
purpose.

Second:
Reclaiming
citizen
agency.
Real
change
is
not
delivered
by
politicians;
it
is
delivered
by
citizens.
We
are
building
an
awakened,
conscious
and
responsible
citizenry,
a
nation
of
leaders,
not
followers.

Third:
Preparing
for
the
next
government.
Our
endgame
is
a
citizens’
government
founded
on
competence,
capacity
and
character.
Governance
is
not
slogans,
it
is
systems,
ethics
and
execution.

Fourth:
A
moral
revolution.
Zimbabwe
does
not
need
new
faces;
it
needs
new
values.
We
must
celebrate
hard
work,
merit,
integrity
and
service.
This
moral
renewal
will
involve
the
church,
traditional
leaders
and
especially
the
youth.

Fifth:
International
engagement.
We
will
restore
Zimbabwe’s
standing
through
principled
global
advocacy,
forging
alliances
with
progressive
forces
and
mobilising
our
diaspora
as
ambassadors
for
a
fresh
start.

The
time
to
reset
is
now.

Agenda
2026
is
a
call
to
courage,
unity
and
action.
Mobilise.
Organise.
Build
grassroots
structures.
Engage
in
dialogue.
Join
the
new
way,
a
citizens’
movement
that
transcends
tribe,
race,
colour
and
party
affiliation.

To
Zimbabweans
in
the
diaspora:
you
are
the
backbone
of
our
economy.
You
will
no
longer
be
observers,
you
are
active
participants
in
this
movement.

Over
the
next
180
days,
our
focus
will
not
be
rallies
or
showmanship,
but
institutional
fortification
and
grassroots
resilience.
We
are
laying
foundations
that
cannot
be
destroyed.

Zimbabwe
can
and
will
work
again.

The
new
dawn
begins
with
us.

God
bless
you.
God
bless
Zimbabwe.


Question
and
Answer
Session
(Edited)


Q:
Are
you
abandoning
strategic
ambiguity
and
how
will
you
regain
supporter
confidence?

Chamisa:
Strategic
ambiguity
fortified
our
base,
that
is
why
we
won
in
2023.
It
is
not
meant
for
our
supporters
but
to
deny
our
opponents
intelligence.
Zanu
PF
has
not
remobilised;
it
has
collapsed
into
factions.
We
have
a
duty
to
lead,
and
we
will
execute
that
duty
with
grace.


Q:
Is
this
a
new
political
party
or
a
movement?

Chamisa:
I
think
I
must
help
you.
I
said
it’s
not
a
political
party,
it’s
a
movement.
And
a
movement
is
like
the
liberation
movement.
Who
was
the
president
of
the
liberation
movement?
What
was
the
constitution
of
the
liberation
movement?
But
the
movement
was
able
to
galvanise
people.

Yes,
you’ll
have
institutions
here
and
there,
but
we
want
to
build
a
movement
that
unites
Zimbabweans
around
a
cause,
around
a
case,
around
an
objective,
around
a
purpose.
And
that’s
what
we
are
preoccupied
with.

So
this
whole
thing
of
saying
is
it
a
new
yes
it’s
a
new
movement,
a
citizens
movement.
New
in
the
sense
that
you
are
going
to
see
everything
new
from
the
tactics
the
strategies,
the
structures,
the
leadership
and
the
way
we
organise
we
we
can’t
continue
to
have
funny
games
with
Zanu
PF
for
far
too
long.

Life
is
difficult.
We
are
suffering
as
if
we
don’t
have
a
country
yet
we
have
over
six
mineral
resources
to
our
name.
God
blessed
us
but
human
beings
cursed
us.

We
have
everything
in
this
country
except
leadership.
We
must
correct
that.
What’s
broken
must
be
fixed
and
that’s
our
focus
and
that’s
our
initiative.
So
I
hope
that
answers
it.


Q:
Does
forgiveness
mean
returning
to
old
alliances?

Chamisa:
Forgiveness
does
not
mean
repeating
mistakes.
Only
a
dog
returns
to
its
vomit,
and
we
are
not
dogs.


Q:
Your
response
to
the
2030
agenda?

Chamisa:
It
is
inconsequential.
Zimbabweans
do
not
support
it.
The
real
fight
is
restoring
constitutional
order,
not
engaging
in
false
battles.

Like Lawyers In Pompeii: Is Legal Ignoring The AI Definitional Crisis? (Part V) – Above the Law


“Thinking
of
AI
as
only
GenAI
leads
to
the
adoption
of
solutions
that
don’t
work
when
there
are
practical,
non-GenAI
ways
to
solve
real
problems.”

Over
the
past
several
parts
of
this
series,
we
have
discussed
the
problems
and
risks
confronting
AI,
its
use
by
legal,
and
how
those
problems
may
lead
to
the
eruption
of
the
GenAI
volcano.
The
truth
is
GenAI
has
been
overhyped
and
oversold.
As
a
result,
there
is
a
real
risk
of
overreliance
on
GenAI
by
those
who
don’t
understand
it
and
what
it
does
which
could
lead
to
disaster.

There’s
yet
another
danger
contributing
to
the
potential
eruption
we
haven’t
addressed,
one
that
is
more
fundamental
than
all
the
others:
a
definitional
confusion
that’s
helping
drive
the
overreliance
we’ve
been
worried
about.


The
Definitional
Danger

The
legal
community
has
gone
from
carefully
distinguishing
GenAI
as
a
category
of
AI
to
using
the
term
“AI”
as
a
reference
to
GenAI
itself.
As
in
only
GenAI
is
AI
and
the
anything
else
isn’t.
In
fact,
AI
is
a
much
broader
concept
and
refers
to
a
whole
category
of
tools
with
different
uses,
benefits
and
value
apart
from
GenAI
completely.

This
confusion,
made
worse
by
vendor
marketing,
fuels
overreliance
on
GenAI
tools
on
the
one
hand,
and
under
reliance
on
solid,
accurate,
and
performing
non-GenAI
tools
on
the
other.

In
fact,
real
AI
experts
understand
conceptually
what
AI
is,
what
it
can
do,
and
the
differences
and
drawbacks
of
confusing
GenAI
with
AI
generally.


AI
Expert
Insights

One
such
expert
is
Baron
Reichart
Von
Wolfshield
who
goes
by
the
single
name

Ki
.
Ki
has
worked
extensively
on
AI
from
the
late
70s.
By
the
90s
he
was
building
and
designing
AI
programs
for
the
US
military,
Disney,
the
architectural
community
and,
yes,
for
law
firms.
He
routinely
consults
with
some
of
the
world’s
largest
companies
and
law
firms
on
AI
and
AI
development.
In
addition,
Ki
has
a
unique
way
of
designing
AI
programs
to
solve
human
problems
that
involves
observation,
logic,
and
simplicity,
not
smoke
and
mirrors.

Like
all
true
experts,
he
has
a
way
of
explaining
complicated
concepts
simply
and
understandably.
I
know
from
years
of
experience
as
a
trial
lawyer
how
rare
that
is.


Ki’s
Insights

Ki
makes
it
simple:
AI
should
be
thought
of
as
something
that
appears
to
act
like
an
intelligent
thing.
He
uses
a
mechanical
spring
to
make
this
point,
“The
simplest
artificial
intelligence
in
the
world
is
a
spring.
You
set
it
up,
push
it
down,
and
it’ll
push
back
against
you.
That’s
the
core
of
AI:
it
is
something
you
can
ask
to
do
something
later,
and
it
will.
That’s
AI.
It
acts
like
a
human.“

Thinking
of
AI
in
this
kind
of
broad
way
illustrates
the
point
that
the
key
is
finding
the
right
tool
to
solve
the
problem,
not
adopting
tools
just
because
they
happen
to
be
in
vogue.
It’s
what
he
calls
the
procrustean
effect,
aka
known
as
trying
to
fit
a
square
peg
in
a
round
hole.

Ki
is
also
quick
to
rightfully
point
out
that
this
doesn’t
mean
you
can
use
AI
tools
without
understanding
what
they
are
doing,
how
they
work,
and
without
proof
they
will
do
what
is
claimed.
That’s
Ki’s
beef
with
LLMs
and
GenAI:
it’s
that
the
hype
doesn’t
match
reality,
and
most
users
don’t
bother
to
get
it.

That’s
why
he
calls
LLMs
a
“parlor
trick”:
“Everything
with
LLMs
right
at
this
moment
is
on
par
with
and
a
child
of
autocomplete.”

He
also
believes
the
hallucination
problems
can’t
be
fixed:
“The
reason
AI
lies
is
the
same
reason
a
human
lie,
because
AI
is
modeling
the
same
neural
system
of
a
human.
You
can’t
get
an
LLM
to
stop
lying
any
more
than
you
can
stop
a
human
from
lying.”
It’s
just
part
of
what
LLMs
are,
and
that’s
not
going
to
change.

Because
of
all
this,
he
concludes
that
the
current
proven
usefulness
of
LLMs
is
little
more
than
that
of
a
glorified
search
engine.
So,
thinking
of
AI
as
only
GenAI
leads
to
the
adoption
of
solutions
that
don’t
work
when
there
are
practical
non-GenAI
ways
to
solve
real
problems.


Practical
Non-GenAI
Examples

Ki
gave
a
couple
of
examples.
He
actually
sat
with
a
lawyer
for
a
day
and
watched
what
he
was
doing.
What
he
found
was
that
the
lawyer
spent
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
figure
out
where
and
how
to
file
attachments
to
the
multitude
of
emails.

Sounds
kind
of
trivial,
but
I
know
this
guy’s
pain.
You’re
trying
to
work
quickly
and
make
filing
decisions
among
a
multitude
of
files,
and
a
mistake
could
be
costly
in
terms
of
lost
materials
and
information.
To
top
it
all
off,
you
can’t
enter
time
for
looking
for
a
file
and
be
paid
for
it.

Ki
figured
out
a
simple,
non-GenAI
solution:
create
a
bot
that
could
automatically
file
the
attachment
and
then
tell
you
where
it
put
it.
Simple
but
saves
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
a
hell
of
a
lot
of
time
and
stress.
For
all
the
hype
of
GenAI,
it’s
not
a
tool
that
can
do
that
simple
task.
Says
Ki,
his
bot
 “is
AI
but
it’s
not
an
LLM.”

Another
example:
Ki
noticed
that
a
lot
of
time
was
spent
on
calendaring
significant
events
like
hearings,
depositions,
court
dates
and
the
like.
Having
humans
do
that
was,
at
best,
clumsy
and
error
prone
since
it
required
a
number
of
steps
to
be
taken
to
get
the
item
accurately
on
multiple
calendars,
let
everyone
know,
and
then
set
up
a
process
to
deal
with
it.
He
ultimately
set
up
a
complete
project
management
system
that
did
all
this
and
more.
By
recognizing
patterns
over
multiple
cases,
it
could
even
help
predict
what
might
happen
and
what
an
opponent
might
be
doing.

The
important
thing
is
that,
in
both
situations,
he
first
learned
what
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
really
need
to
do
their
everyday
jobs
and
what
they
care
about.
Then
he
developed
a
simple,
usable
AI
solutions.

This
is
not
GenAI
but
is
AI
that
works,
doesn’t
hallucinate,
doesn’t
make
errors,
and
doesn’t
need
to
be
verified.


Implications
for
Legal

Of
course,
as
we
have

discussed
before
,
the
hallucination
problem
has
enormous
implications
for
legal.
In
many
areas
of
legal,
inaccuracies
and
hallucinations
can’t
be
tolerated.
“That
danger
is
missed,”
says
Ki,
“by
those
who
don’t
understand
the
tool.”

“But
there
is
second,
and
perhaps
more
serious
risk
here,”
says
Ki.
And
that
is
by
lumping
all
AI
into
the
GenAI
bucket,
more
valid
and
error
free
AI
and
automation
tools
will
be
ignored.
Tools
that
can
make
life
simpler
and
better
for
lawyers.
Tools
that
solve
what
Ki
refers
to
as
“boring”
problems.
Problems
that
are
stress
points
for
every
attorney.

Instead
of
focusing
on
these
solutions,
GenAI
providers
often
try
to
coat
every
solution
in
a
GenAI
wrapper
without
considering
the
real
problem,
and
a
simple
solution
that
works.
By
doing
so,
they
suggest
to
legal
customers
that
all
AI
is
GenAI
and
only
GenAI
can
solve
legal
their
problems.
The
result
is
that
customers
are
often
getting
something
that’s
expensive,
doesn’t
solve
their
real
problem,
and
doesn’t
work
as
they
thought.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
they
discard
the
tools
altogether.

There
are
in
fact
things
that
non-GenAI
does
quite
well
and
quite
accurately
if
you
understand
what
it
is
doing
and
analyze
the
problem
correctly
on
the
front
end.
Often
these
problems
result
in
work
for
which
lawyers
are
not
trained
for
but
have
to
do
anyway.
Ki
wants
to
stamp
all
these
out,
leaving
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
do
what
they
are
good
at.

By
thinking
that
AI
is
GenAI
only,
the
boring
repetitive
tasks
that
Ki
tackles
would
be
left
undone,
perpetuating
inefficiencies
that
could
be
eliminated
while
instead
adopting
GenAI
systems
that

create
greater
inefficiencies

instead.


The
Over
Reliance
Problem

There’s
also
the
danger
that
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
will
come
to
believe
all
the
GenAI
hype
and
just
rely
on
it.
It’s
the
“if
GenAI
tools
says
it,
it
must
be
true”
syndrome.
Here’s
an
example
of
how
that
could
work.
Admittedly,
if
you
create
the
right
prompt,
a
GenAI
tool
can
give
you
a
list
of
questions
to
ask
in
a
deposition
or
even
assist
you
in
the
deposition
itself
to
spot
inconsistencies
or
correct
bad
questions.

But
the
temptation
for
a
busy
lawyer,
particularly
a
less
experienced
one,
is
to
just
take
that
list
and
doggedly
ask
every
question
on
it.
We
have
all
seen
lawyers
who
make
that
kind
of
list
on
their
own
and
do
just
that.
They
end
up
asking
questions
that
clearly
were
no
longer
relevant
based
on
what
the
witness
previously
said.
They
miss
nuance
and
body
language
that
may
lead
to
unexpected
and
unplanned
questions
that
sometimes
can
break
open
a
case.
They
fail
to
follow
up.

I
once
took
the
deposition
of
a
class
rep.
I
made
a
list
of
questions
in
advance
to
ask.
At
one
point
in
the
deposition,
I
happened
to
ask
what
I
thought
was
a
throw
away
question:
what
claims
the
witness
had
made
or
had
been
made
against
him.
There
was
something
in
the
way
he
looked
when
he
answered.
A
certain
hesitancy
that
made
me
dig
in
on
what
seemed
to
be
a
meaningless
line
of
inquiry.
Come
to
find
out,
he
had
filed
bankruptcy
a
few
months
before.
That
fact
ended
the
case.
Blind
adherence
to
a
GenAI
deposition
list
of
questions
would
never
have
led
me
to
that
question.


Lessons
For
Law
Firms

All
of
this
poses
particular
problems
for
lawyers,
legal
professionals,
and
law
firms.
They
aren’t
Ki
and
most
don’t
have
a
Ki
working
for
them.

But
there
are
some
practical
steps
firms
can
take
and
some
lessons
fordealing
with
AI
and
GenAI.
First
and
foremost,
firms
need
to
realize
that
there
is
a
difference
between
AI
and
GenAI
and
that
there
are
solutions
to
problems
that
don’t
involve
GenAI
at
all.

Firms
should
also
understand
that
there
are
issues
yet
with
GenAI
that
haven’t
been
solved.
Issues
with
respect
to
things
like

accuracy

and
the

costs
of
verification
,
the

infrastructure
,
and
the
robustness
of
the
investment
and
capital.

So
before
purchasing
GenAI
products
out
of
FOMO
or
over
relying
on
their
outputs,
ask
the
hard
questions.
Identify
the
actual
pain
points
you
want
to
eliminate
and
then
determine
whether
the
tools
can
really
solve
your
problem
or
would
simpler,
non-GenAI
tools
do
a
better
job.

And
for
God’s
sake,
don’t
accept
what
vendors
or
others
are
telling
you.
Remember,
that
for
a
variety
of
reasons
we
have
discussed,
the
GenAI
volcano
may
be
about
to
erupt
as
better
and
more
accurate
AI
solutions
surface,
and
the
hype
is
replaced
by
reality.

Next
time
we
will
look
at
how
a
non-GenAI
solution
may,
in
fact,
even
solve
some
of
GenAI’s
real
problems.


Read
our
entire
“Pompeii”
Series:



Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Infrastructure
Crisis?
(Part
I)



Like
Lawyers
In Pompeii: Is Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming AI
Cost
Crisis?
(Part
II)



Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Trust
Crisis?
(Part
III)



Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Financial
Crisis?
(Part
IV)




Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads
,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law



Melissa
“Rogo”
Rogozinski
is
an
operations-driven
executive
with
more
than
three
decades
of
experience
scaling
high-growth
legal-tech
startups
and
B2B
organizations.
A
trusted
partner
to
CEOs
and
founders,
Rogo
aligns
systems,
product,
marketing,
sales,
and
client
success
into
a
unified,
performance-focused
engine
that
accelerates
organizational
maturity.
Connect
with Rogo
on
LinkedIn
.

Judge Shot At Home Still Has ‘Strong Faith’ In Judicial System – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day
.


I
want
the
community
to
know
that
I
have
strong
faith
in
our
judicial
system.
This
horrific
violence
will
not
shake
my
belief
in
the
importance
of
peacefully
resolving
disputes.
I
remain
confident
we
have
the
best
judicial
system
in
the
world,
and
I
am
proud
to
be
a
part
of
it.



— Tippecanoe
County
Superior
Court
Judge
Steven
P.
Meyer,
in
comments
given
to
the

Indiana
Lawyer
,
showing
his
resilience
and
faith
in
the
rule
of
law,
in
the
wake
of
being

shot
at
home

alongside
his
wife.
Meyer,
who
was
shot
in
the
arm,
remains
in
the
hospital,
while
his
wife
was
released
previously.
While
an
investigation
into
the
shooting
is
ongoing,
no
arrests
have
been
made.





Staci
Zaretsky
 is
the
managing
editor
of
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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Delays in child justice law spark rights concerns

First
tabled
in
Parliament
in
2021
and
passed
in
2023,
the
Bill
remains
unsigned.
It
was
designed
to
establish
a
separate,
child-friendly
justice
system
in
line
with
Section
81
of
the
Constitution
and
Zimbabwe’s
international
obligations.
In
the
absence
of
this
specific
legislation,
children
are
still
processed
under
general
criminal
laws
that
often
prioritize
retribution
over
rehabilitation.

Speaking
on This
Morning
on
Asakhe
,
an
X-Spaces
programme
hosted
by
CITE,
Sharon
Chava,
a
human
rights
lawyer
with
the
Legal
Resources
Foundation,
explained
that
the
proposed
law
prioritizes
“diversion”,
a
process
that
channels
children
away
from
formal
criminal
proceedings
toward
age-appropriate
interventions.

“The
Bill
introduces
diversion
options
to
ensure
children
are
removed
from
the
formal
system
at
every
stage
where
appropriate,”
Chava
said.
“Currently,
we
see
inconsistent
application
of
principles.
There
should
be
standard
measures,
such
as
child-sensitive
language,
because
children
react
differently
to
situations
adults
consider
normal.
A
formal
court
environment
can
instill
deep
fear
in
a
child.”

Chava
further
highlighted
the
uneven
application
of
protective
measures,
noting
that
while
some
magistrates
clear
the
public
gallery
for
juvenile
cases,
others
do
not
unless
specifically
requested
by
a
lawyer.

“If
a
child
is
accused
of
theft,
they
are
referred
to
a
general
court
dealing
with
theft,
rather
than
a
specialized
courtroom
equipped
to
handle
children.
This
is
a
significant
gap,”
Chava
added.

She
warned
that
without
specialised
“child-friendly”
mechanisms,
similar
to
the
Victim-Friendly
Courts
used
for
abuse
cases,
a
child’s
constitutional
rights
depend
entirely
on
whether
their
magistrate
is
knowledgeable
or
their
lawyer
is
exceptionally
vocal.

Advocate
Pamela
Musimwa
of
the
Justice
for
Children
Trust
described
the
Bill
as
a
progressive
step
that
challenges
societal
prejudices.

“Society
often
has
a
harsh
attitude
toward
these
children,”
Musimwa
said.
“We
forget
that
childhood
mischief
is
part
of
growing
up.
Many
of
these
offenses
are
committed
due
to
a
lack
of
understanding
or
maturity.
This
Bill
is
about
giving
children
a
second
chance.”

Musimwa
noted
that
most
children
she
represents
express
deep
regret
years
later,
once
they
have
the
maturity
to
appreciate
the
consequences
of
their
actions,
an
appreciation
they
lacked
at
the
time
of
the
offence.

Perhaps
the
most
critical
change
the
Bill
introduces
is
the
age
of
criminal
responsibility.
Under
current
Zimbabwean
law,
children
as
young
as
seven
can
be
held
criminally
liable.

“Currently,
children
as
young
as
10
can
be
prosecuted
with
the
authority
of
the
Prosecutor
General,”
Musimwa
explained,
citing
a
tragic
case
where
a
kindergarten-aged
child
accidentally
killed
a
peer
while
playing.
“In
talking
to
that
child,
you
realize
they
cannot
even
grasp
the
consequences
of
their
act.
To
have
a
criminal
offense,
there
must
be
an
appreciation
that
the
act
is
wrong.”

The
Child
Justice
Bill
seeks
to
remedy
this
by
raising
the
minimum
age
of
criminal
responsibility
to
12
years,
ensuring
the
law
recognises
the
developmental
realities
of
childhood.

Chinese ivory syndicates worsen Zimbabwe’s illicit financial flows

Arrested
in
Harare
on
July
16,
2025,
the
47-year-old
was
found
in
possession
of
three
rhino
horns
and
four
pieces
of
raw
ivory
with
a
combined
street
value
exceeding
US$246
000.

While
Cong’s
case
stood
out
because
of
the
quantities
of
ivory
involved,
conservationists
said
such
matters
are
becoming
a
permanent
feature
in
courts
around
Zimbabwe.

In
February
2025,
two
Chinese
nationals,
Lin
Wang
and
Fux
Wang,
appeared
at
the
Harare
magistrates
court
after
they
were
caught
at
the
Robert
Gabriel
Mugabe
International
Airport
in
Harare
trying
to
smuggle
out
of
the
country
rhino
horns
worth
a
combined
US$480
000.

In
a
separate
case,
Lin
and
Fux
were
caught
by
undercover
detectives
while
trying
to
make
arrangements
to
smuggle
rhino
horns
worth
US$120
000
with
an
agent
in
Harare’s
Alexandra
Park.

Li
Song,
a
Chinese
national
allegedly
at
the
centre
of
a
poaching
network
in
Zimbabwe
for
many
years
during
the
Robert
Mugabe
years,
went
under
the
radar
in
2024
after
she
was
arrested
for
allegedly
importing
large
quantities
of
cyanide
and
storing
it
in
unsafe
locations.

Cyanide
was
once
a
weapon
of
choice
for
poachers
who
killed
hundreds
of
elephants
at
the
Hwange
National
Park
for
their
ivory.

Li
is
rumoured
to
have
escaped
to
her
country
after
a
Harare
magistrate
issued
a
warrant
of
arrest
against
her
two
years
ago
for
skipping
trial.

While
the
National
Prosecuting
Authority
of
Zimbabwe
(NPAZ)
usually
hails
the
arrests
of
the
Chinese
nationals
as
a
signal
that
the
fight
against
wildlife
crimes
is
intensifying,
conservationists
said
the
cases
were
only
a
tip
of
the
iceberg.


East
Asian
syndicates
and
hidden
financial
flows

Conservationists
revealed
the
increasing
number
of
Chinese
nationals
being
arrested
during
ivory
seizures
was
proof
that
syndicates
from
East
Asia
have
become
the
main
challenge
in
the
fight
against
illegal
wildlife
trade
in
Zimbabwe,
leading
to
illicit
financial
flows.

Lack
of
detailed
investigations
after
the
seizures
has
prevented
the
syndicates
from
being
unmasked.
They
remain
untouched,
the
conservationists
said.

The
foreign
syndicates
allegedly
connive
with
corrupt
officials
to
smuggle
ivory
from
elephants
mainly
poached
from
Matabeleland
North’s
major
wildlife
reserves
that
include
the
Hwange
National
Park.

At
least
30
000
elephants
are
killed
across
Africa
every
year
for
their
tusks,
which
frequently
end
up
in
Chinese
and
Vietnamese
markets.

Zimbabwe
has
the
second-largest
elephant
population
in
the
world
after
Botswana
and
holds
an
estimated
120
metric
tonnes
of
stockpiled
ivory,
accumulated
under
a
global
trade
ban
intended
to
protect
endangered
species.

Zimbabwe,
alongside
Botswana
and
Namibia,
has
lobbied
for
the
lifting
of
the
ban,
arguing
that
controlled
sales
would
undercut
black
markets
and
generate
funds
for
conservation.

For
years,
Zimbabwe’s
elephant
population
has
been
under
siege
from
ivory
poachers
amid
the
growing
influence
of
the
Chinese
population
in
the
country.

China
has
become
the
world’s
largest
ivory
market
and
organised
criminal
syndicates
from
that
country
have
been
identified
as
the
key
drivers
of
ivory
trafficking
from
Zimbabwe.

Investigations
that
involved
tracking
criminal
prosecutions
in
Matabeleland
North,
interviews
with
conservationists
and
reviewing
reports
on
wildlife
crimes,
showed
Chinese
syndicates
were
behind
illicit
financial
flows
from
illegal
ivory
trade.

According
to
the
Wildlife
Justice
Commission
(2020),
a
kilogramme
of
raw
ivory
fetches
between
US$75
and
US$85
on
southern
African
black
markets,
compared
to
as
much
as
US$400
in
China
and
Vietnam.

The
Organised
Crime
Index
2023
described
“wildlife
trafficking
as
prevalent
in
Zimbabwe,
particularly
for
ivory
and
rhino
horns.”

“Chinese
transnational
organised
criminal
groups
are
involved
in
this
crime
in
the
country,”
the
report
said.

In
2025
the
same
report
said
“fauna
crimes
are
highly
consolidated,
with
well-organised
poaching
networks
engaged
in
the
illegal
trade
of
ivory
and
rhino
horns.”

“Corruption
among
state-embedded
actors
enables
traffickers
to
operate
with
little
resistance,”
the
report
added.

“The
demand
for
wildlife
products
primarily
originates
from
Asia,
Chinese
nationals
reportedly
playing
a
significant
role
in
the
market.”

These
smuggling
routes
often
overlap
with
gold,
arms
and
drug
trafficking
pipelines,
complicating
surveillance
and
enforcement.

Investigators
found
that
routes
through
Matabeleland
North,
Hwange,
Binga
and
Lupane
link
to
trucking
corridors
feeding
into
South
Africa,
where
illicit
shipments
are
then
sent
to
East
Asian
markets.


Layers
of
a
poaching
syndicate

Amos
Gwema,
a
wildlife
law
enforcement
specialist
with
over
two
decades
of
experience,
said
the
foreign
poaching
syndicates
had
a
hierarchy
that
started
with
villagers
at
the
base,
followed
by
local
syndicate
leaders,
city-based
consolidators,
and
regional
facilitators
and
led
by
international
masterminds.

Gwema,
also
author
of
the
book,
Safeguarding
Wildlife

A
Manual
for
Investigation,
Enforcement
and
Conservation,
said
poor
villagers
form
the
base
of
the
triangle,
often
bearing
the
brunt
of
law
enforcement
efforts.

“They
are
identified,
arrested,
and
charged
with
possession
or
dealing
in
wildlife
products,
making
it
difficult
to
connect
them
to
higher-level
operatives,”
he
said.

“In
some
cases,
they
are
shot
while
poaching,
and
law
enforcement
celebrates
these
incidents.
Rarely
do
efforts
go
beyond
this
level
to
investigate
further,
largely
due
to
the
legal
challenges
in
linking
them
to
the
broader
syndicate.”

A
layer
above
the
poachers
are
local
syndicate
leaders
who
are 
the
middlemen,
collecting
ivory
and
wildlife
products
from
the
villagers.

Gwema
said
these
individuals
were
trusted
by
buyers
and
received
funds
to
purchase
ivory,
often
at
significantly
lower
prices
of
between
US$20
to
US$40
per
kilogramme
compared
to
US$100
per
kg.

“They
don’t
engage
in
poaching
directly,
instead
waiting
for
Level
1
operatives
to
bring
products
to
them,
often
outside
the
park
or
poaching
area,”
he
said.

City-based
consolidators
are
the
next
layer
operating
from
urban
areas,
receiving
and
consolidating
products
from
Level
2
collectors.

They
are
typically
foreigners
residing
in
the
country,
or
locals
who
have
earned
the
trust
of
local
syndicate
leaders.

They
facilitate
the
transportation
of
ivory
and
other
products
out
of
the
country,
dealing
only
with
trusted
local
syndicate
leaders.

Gwema
said
the
city-based
consolidators
were
followed
by
individuals
that
oversee
regional
operations,
leveraging
connections
to
facilitate
transportation
and
logistics
for
the
illicit
trade.

“They
operate
from
regional
hubs,
which
can
be
countries
where
animals
are
poached,
such
as
Zimbabwe,
Zambia,
or
South
Africa,”
he
added.

“They
are
challenging
for
law
enforcement
to
reach,
making
them
a
crucial
part
of
the
syndicate’s
structure.
At
the
apex
of
the
syndicate,
these
individuals
orchestrate
the
entire
operation
and
reap
the
greatest
benefits.
They
are
based
in
consumer
markets
and
are
the
hardest
to
apprehend,
making
them
the
elusive
drivers
of
the
illicit
wildlife
trade.”


Financial
intelligence
flags
wildlife
crime

A
common
feature
of
Zimbabwe’s
Financial
Intelligence
Unit
(FIU)
in
the
past
few
years
is
the
increasing
incidence
of
illicit
financial
flows
linked
to
environment
crimes
such
as
the
smuggling
of
ivory.

“Environmental-crime-related
financial
activity
is
rising
sharply,”
noted
the
FIU’s
2024
report.

“The
jump
from
212
Suspicious
Transaction
Reports
(STRs)
in
2022
to
an
average
of
55
per
month
in
early
2023
signals
that
criminal
networks
are
increasingly
using
formal
financial
channels.”

The
FIU
said
suspicious
transaction
reports
associated
with
illegal
wildlife
trade
dominated
environmental
crime
categories,
followed
by
illegal
gold
mining
and
timber
smuggling.

Matabeleland
North,
Mashonaland
West
and
Masvingo
were
identified
as
the
hotspots
for
ivory
poaching.

Poaching
hotspots
are
areas
with
elephant
populations,
such
as
Hwange,
Sebungwe,
Northern
regions
and
Gonarezhou.

Smugglers
move
ivory
through
porous
borders,
like
the
Zambezi
River,
or
unmanned
land
border
lines,
conservationists
who
spoke
on
condition
of
anonymity
said.

The
FIU
said
it
now
possessed
the
capacity
to
“trace
cross-border
wire
transfers,
identify
shell-company
structures,
and
coordinate
arrests
with
law-enforcement
partners
(Interpol,
ZimParks,
NPA).”


Civil
society
raises
alarm

Farai
Maguwu,
Director
of
the
Centre
for
Natural
Resource
Governance,
said
Chinese
nationals
dominated
the
number
of
foreigners
caught
trying
to
smuggle
ivory
out
of
Zimbabwe,
pointing
to
entrenched
criminal
syndicates
operating
in
the
country.

“If
you
do
a
simple
Google
search,
you
will
find
that
Chinese
nationals
have
been
arrested
from
time
to
time
in
Zimbabwe
with
ivory
and
rhino
horn,”
Maguwu
said.

“There’s
also
international
research
that
was
done
which
implicated
some
powerful
Zimbabweans
as
well
in
poaching.

‘So
the
Chinese
normally
work
with
locals
when
they
do
these
things,
but
this
is
something
that
we
must
really
be
concerned
about
because
it’s
part
of
transnational
organised
crime.

“The
shipment
of
ivory
from
Zimbabwe
to
whatever
destination
shows
that
there
is
a
well-coordinated
criminal
syndicate
involved
in
poaching
in
this
country.”

Muguwu,
whose
organisation
does
research
and
advocacy
aimed
at
promoting
citizen
participation,
said
their
grassroots
monitors
in
ivory
poaching
hotpots
such
as
Hwange
often
recorded
suspicious
activities
by
Chinese
nationals.

“As
you
know
a
few
years
ago
Chinese
nationals
were
caught
with
ivory
in
Zimbabwe
and
were
granted
bail,”
he
said.

“Predictably,
they
fled
the
country
while
on
bail.
In
a
normal
situation,
when
you
are
arrested
in
a
foreign
land
for
such
a
serious
crime.

“So
the
question
is:
how
many
such
cases
go
unnoticed?
Are
those
arrested
only
the
tip
of
the
iceberg?”

Nkosikhona
Sibanda,
Director
at
the
Centre
for
Environment
and
Corporate
Accountability,
said
there
were
allegations
that
some
Chinese
nationals
employed
around
Hwange
were
involved
in
poaching
activities.

A
number
of
Chinese
coal
mines
have
been
established
in
Hwange
since
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
came
into
power
in
2017.

In
2020
the
government
was
forced
to
ban
all
mining
in
national
parks
after
furore
greeted
the
granting
of
coal
mining
exploration
to
Chinese-owned
Afrochine
Energy
and
Zhongxin
Coal
Mining.

Conservationists,
who
opposed
the
attempts
to
open
the
mines
inside
Zimbabwe’s
biggest
game
reserve
said
the
granting
of
the
licenses
would
result
in
irreparable
harm
to
the
fragile
ecosystem.

“Based
on
our
interactions
with
workers
employed
by
Chinese
mining
companies,
we
have
gathered
that
there
are
activities
taking
place
in
and
around
Hwange
that
appear
to
be
illegal,
and
we
are
still
trying
to
establish
the
full
facts,”
Sibanda
said.

“Many
of
these
activities
seem
to
be
linked
to
poaching
and
the
trafficking
of
ivory
out
of
Zimbabwe,
particularly
from
areas
around
Hwange
National
Park.

“There
has
been
an
influx
of
Chinese
nationals
into
Hwange,
most
of
whom
are
presented
as
mine
workers
employed
by
Chinese-owned
mining
operations
in
the
area.

He
said
most
of
the
Chinese
nationals
had
access
to
guns
that
their
employers
claim
are
for
security
reasons,
but
some
of
them
end
up
being
used
for
poaching.

“We
have
seen
ordinary
citizens
sentenced
to
seven,
eight,
10
or
even
15
years
in
prison
for
being
found
in
possession
of
wildlife
products
without
licences,”
Sibanda
said.

“However,
we
have
not
seen
major
convictions
involving
Chinese
nationals,
despite
a
number
of
arrests
that
have
been
publicly
reported
by
the
Zimbabwe
Republic
Police.

“This
raises
questions
about
whether
wildlife
crimes
are
being
treated
differently
based
on
a
person’s
nationality
or
skin
colour.”


Silence
from
authorities

Zimparks
spokesperson,
Tamiriraishe
Mudzingwa,
requested
questions
in
writing
when
he
was
asked
to
comment
on
the
involvement
of
Chinese
nationals
in
poaching
activities,
but
did
not
respond
for
over
a
month.

Zimbabwe
lost
300
elephants
at
the
Hwange
National
Park
in
2013
where
poachers
used
cyanide
poisoning
in
an
incident
that
drew
global
attention
to
the
poaching
problem.