Identification Underway For 43 Victims Of Limpopo Bus Crash – Ramathuba

The
accident
happened
when
a
bus
carrying
91
passengers
from
the
Eastern
Cape
to
Zimbabwe
veered
off
the
Zoutpansberg
mountain
and
plunged
down
a
steep
slope.
A
total
of
40
people
were
injured.
Ramathuba’s
office,
said:

“Working
with
authorities
from
Zimbabwe
and
Malawi,
the
province
hopes
they
will
be
able
to
run
fingerprint
comparisons
on
their
side
since
some
of
the
deceased
do
not
have
identification
documents.

“It
is
only
then
they
will
be
able
to
repatriate
them
for
their
families
to
have
closure.”

Ramathuba
said
photographs
of
all
the
deceased
have
been
taken
and
encouraged
families
searching
for
their
loved
ones
to
visit
Tshilidzini
Hospital
to
help
with
the
identification
process. She
said:

“The
victim
identification
team
will
start
collecting
fingerprint
sets
from
all
the
bodies.

“It
is
anticipated
by
Wednesday
the
forensic
pathology
teams
would
have
concluded
postmortem
examinations.”

Ramathuba
said
17
families
had
already
arrived
at
Tshilidzini
Hospital
to
identify
their
loved
ones,
and
the
process
will
continue
on
Wednesday
for
the
remaining
families.

She
added
that
19
patients
have
been
discharged
and
reunited
with
their
families
in
Zimbabwe
and
Malawi.

Authorities
will
investigate
why
the
bus
travelled
such
a
long
distance
with
so
many
passengers,
she
said.

Police
have
opened
a
case
of
culpable
homicide,
while
the
Road
Traffic
Management
Corporation
is
finalising
a
technical
report
on
the
cause
of
the
crash.

Coup Accusations Rock ZANU-PF Politburo

Chiwenga’s
document,
which
he
submitted
to
Mnangagwa
on
17
September,
began
by
referencing
the
November
2017
military
intervention
that
brought
the
pair
to
power.

He
accused
Mnangagwa’s
close
allies
of
“corruption,
capture,
and
betrayal”
of
the
ideals
of
the
2017
operation.

The
vice
president
singled
out
four
individuals,
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei,
Wicknell
Chivhayo,
Scott
Sakupwanya,
and
Delish
Nguwaya,
alleging
that
they
used
illicit
funds
to
“bribe
fellow
comrades
and
party
structures
to
gain
support,
protection,
and
influence.”

Chiwenga
claimed
they
had
“not
only
enriched
themselves
but
are
using
their
stolen
wealth
to
capture
the
Party,
manipulate
state
institutions,
and
compromise
key
officials.”

In
response,
a
document
authored
by
ZANU
PF’s
legal
secretary,
Ziyambi
Ziyambi,
and
presented
to
the
Politburo
on
Tuesday,
14
October,
described
Chiwenga’s
dossier
as
“fundamentally
flawed,
treasonous,
and
showing
a
lack
of
understanding
of
party
procedures
and
the
national
constitution.”
Said
Ziyambi:

“At
its
core,
the
document
advocates
for
the
unlawful
removal
of
a
constitutionally
elected
President,
which
is
palpably
treasonous.

“The
document
not
only
undermines
the
President
but
also
the
economy
and
individuals
who
work
hard
to
support
the
Party.

“One
wonders
whether
the
placement
under
sanctions
of
some
of
these
individuals
was
not
a
result
of
such
reckless
utterances.

“Such
reckless
utterances
have
cost
our
economy,
His
Excellency’s
goodwill
in
the
international
fora,
and
individuals
who
have
been
unduly
placed
under
sanctions,
and
in
the
end,
no
investor
would
want
to
invest
in
our
country.

“What
is
equally
troubling
is
how
such
a
document
found
its
way
into
the
hands
of
hostile
media
houses
across
the
country.

“The
circumstances
under
which
the
author
obtained
access
to
the
documents,
now
in
the
public
domain,
remain
highly
questionable
and
amount
to
a
violation
of
the
Official
Secrets
Act.

“The
presentation
bears
a
striking
resemblance
to
the
narratives
perpetuated
by
Geza,
Western
media
and
all
our
detractors
bent
on
undermining
our
sovereignty
and
constitutional
order.

“Whilst
the
author
castigates
certain
individuals,
he
has
never
castigated
Geza,
a
rebel
who
was
expelled
from
the
Party
and
is
bent
on
inciting
chaos
in
the
country.

“The
Party
remains
committed
to
fostering
an
environment
where
constructive
criticism
and
dissenting
views
are
valued,
but
such
views
must
be
presented
in
a
manner
that
is
respectful,
factually
accurate,
and
in
good
faith.

“The
author
of
the
document
does
not
understand
the
tenets
of
democracy
and
the
difference
between
civilian
and
military
conduct,
which
prompts
a
reorientation
course
at
the
Chitepo
School
of
Ideology
for
the
whole
Politburo
and
Central
Committee,
on
the
Supremacy
of
the
Party
and
basic
tenets
of
democracy.

“The
document’s
intention
is
suspect,
and
its
allegations
are
baseless
and
devoid
of
evidence.

“We
are
compelled
to
re-emphasise
that
any
attempt
to
stage
a
coup,
whether
through
treacherous
acts,
misrepresentation
of
facts,
violation
of
others’
privacy,
incitement
of
violence
and
despondency,
or
willful
blindness
to
positive
development,
is
a
grave
offence
that
undermines
the
stability
and
unity
of
our
nation
and
should
be
liable
to
immediate
censure.”

ZANU
PF
insiders
who
spoke
to
ZimLive
said
that
Chiwenga
also
faced
criticism
from
the
party’s
national
chair,
Oppah
Muchinguri.

She
reminded
him
that
they
had
all
fought
in
the
liberation
war,
but
their
paths
diverged
at
independence,
with
Chiwenga
becoming
a
soldier
while
others
entered
government.

Muchinguri
reportedly
told
Chiwenga,
a
retired
commander
of
the
Zimbabwe
Defence
Forces,
that
there
was
“nothing
special
about
coming
from
the
barracks.”

ZANU
PF
legal
secretary
Patrick
Chinamasa
also
reportedly
criticised
the
vice
president,
saying
his
attacks
on
the
Land
Tenure
Implementation
Committee,
led
by
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei,
overlooked
the
fact
that
“the
president
owns
all
land.”

In
response,
Chiwenga
reportedly
spoke
briefly,
but
the
room
fell
silent
after
he
spoke.
He
reportedly
said:

 “I’ve
listened
to
all
your
presentations
and
I’m
convinced
that
all
of
you
support
zvigananda.
It’s
okay.
I
acknowledge
it.”

Has AI Managed To Make Lawyers Even Dumber? – Above the Law

Philosopher
Paul
Virilio
wrote
of
the
integral
accident

with
technological
advancement
there
comes
a
corresponding
new
accident.

Planes
beget
plane
crashes,
electricity
begets
electrocution
.
Artificial
intelligence
has,
in
turn,
delivered
the
AI
hallucination.
Lawyers

do
it
,
judges

do
it
,
our
clients

do
it
.
When

Mata
v.
Avianca

came
down

the
ur
text
of
lawyer
AI
hallucination
screw
ups

we
defended
the
technology
against
critics,
stressing
that

the
problem
in
this
case
remained
fundamentally
human
.
It
shouldn’t
matter
where
the
fake
cite
comes
from…
lawyers
have
an
obligation
to
check
their
filings
for
accuracy.

Don’t
hate
the
(video)
game,
hate
the
player.

Now,
after
a
couple
years
of
sustained
hallucination
embarrassments
across
the
industry,
we
have
to
wonder
if
it’s
time
to
start
hating
the
game.
It
seems
like
they’re
just
not
stopping
and
it
doesn’t
seem
to
matter
if
the
sanctions
are

understanding

or

draconian
.
There’s
another
story
coming
out
of
last
week:

Christine
Lemmer-Webber
described
generative
AI
as
Mansplaining
As
A
Service,
and
I
don’t
know
if
an
AI
tool
suggested
telling
the
judge
that
there
were
attached
cases
that
weren’t
attached,
but
it
raises
the
mansplaining
bar.

How
is
this
still
happening?
There’s
an
interesting
back-and-forth
among
law
professors
today:

In
response,
Professor
Frye
states:

Which
is
fair.
Plagiarism
should
be
your
friend
in
a
common
law
legal
system.
Whenever
an
enterprising
lawyer
tries
to

assert
copyright
over
their
public
filings
,
a
puppy
dies.
But
there’s
an
art
to
knowing

what

to
properly
copy
to
advance
the
client’s
argument.
Though
even
with
a
“human
in
the
loop”

the
industry
polite
phrasing
for
“you’re
still
responsible,
dumbass”

does
the
human
process
of
finding
good
material
and
copying
it
lose
something
when
automated?

On
a
surface
level,
it
shouldn’t.
However
the
material
gets
there,
the
human
checking
it
should
make
sure
it’s
right
before
it
goes
out
the
door.

But
returning
to
Virilio,
another
of
his
core
arguments
was
that

speed

changes
the
nature
of
an
event.
Applying
this
sort
of
dromological
displacement
to
the
process
of
writing,
Virilio
might
say
that
these
tools
aren’t
just
typing
faster,
but
changing
what
a
“brief”
(or
“opinion”)
even
is.
Is
the
brief
merely
the
manifestation
of
the
argument
to
the
tribunal,
or
is
it
also
the
site
of
the
lawyer’s

thinking
through

of
the
argument.
To
the
extent
it’s
the
latter,
automation
collapses
that
temporal
space.
The
lawyer
doesn’t
write

with

time
anymore,
as
much
as
they
write

against

it.
When
we
talk
about
how
AI
accelerates
the
process,
a
lawyer’s
conception
of
the
workflow
itself
can
change
and
the
human
act
of
tediously
checking
cites
becomes
so
jarring
when
juxtaposed
to
the
writing
process
that
we
look
down
upon
it
as
an
obstacle
to
be
half-assed…
or,
probably
inevitably,
turned
over
to
yet
another
bot.

The
hype
surrounding
“Agentic”
AI
tends
to
suggest
the
industry
has
a
hankering
for
this
“GPT-sus
Take
The
Wheel”
approach.
Truly

Agentic
AI
is
miserably
inaccurate
.
Thankfully,
most
agentic
applications
in
legal
are

can
only
very
tenuously
be
called
“agentic,”

which
may
irritate
marketing
teams,
but
should
make
lawyers
more
comfortable.
Regardless,
the
fact
that
we’re

talking

about
Agentic
AI
as
a
goal
is
indicative
of
a
desire
to
erode
the
human
from
the
loop.
There’s
a
fundamental
difference
between
(1)
the
iterative
process
of
querying
the
bot,
checking
the
output,
refining
the
query,
checking
the
output,
rethinking
strategy,
running
the
query
again,
checking
that,
and
then
moving
to
step
2
in
a
five-step
workflow;
and,
(2)
showing
up
after
an
AI
churned
through
the
five-step
workflow
uninterrupted
and
trying
to
reverse
engineer
the
delivered
work
product
to
make
sure
it
makes
sense.
Because
the
first
option
is
where
AI
more
or
less
exists
as
a
legal
tool
now
and
the
second
is
the
“promise”
of
agentic.

And
anyone
who
doesn’t
believe
there’s
a
difference
between
the
two,
consider
how
you
would
normally
work
on
a
brief
with
junior
associates
every
day
and
assigning
the
brief,
taking
a
three-week
vacation,
and
then
editing
a
draft
for
the
first
time
six
hours
before
it’s
due.
Those
are
two
very
different
processes.

Which
brings
us
back
to
the
question:
has
AI
made
lawyers
dumber?
Is
it
just
shining
a
light
on
lawyers
who
were
already
too
careless,
or
has
it
changed
the
whole
process
in
a
way
that
creates
more
carelessness?

And
if
it
is
the
latter,
the
answer
isn’t
to
reject
the
technology.
There
may
well
be
a
catastrophic
bubble
bursting
sometime
soon,
but
the
underlying
technology
will
find
a
way
to
go
on.
How
do
lawyers
adapt
to
this
psychological
reordering
of
the
process?
Like
most
continental
philosophy,
Virilio
isn’t
saying
speed
is
necessarily
bad,
it
just…
is.

And
understanding
what
it’s
doing
to
you
is
half
the
battle.


Headshot




Joe
Patrice
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
Feel
free
to email any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or Bluesky if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

You Can’t Put The First Amendment To Bed – Above the Law


The
First
Amendment
does
not
have
a
bedtime
of
10:00
p.m.
The
burden
is
on
the
government
to
prove
that
its
actions
are
narrowly
tailored
to
achieve
a
compelling
governmental
interest.
It
has
not
done
so.




— Western
District
of
Texas
Judge
David
Ezra
in
a

recent
decision

finding
that
a
Texas
law
barring
otherwise
protected
speech
on
campus
by
students
is
likely
unconstitutional,
and
granting
plaintiff
student
groups
an
injunction
from
the
enforcement
of
the
statute.
The
law
prohibited
expressive
activities
from
10
p.m.
to
8
a.m.,
with
additional
restrictions
during
the
last
two
weeks
of
the
academic
term.
Ezra
noted
the
statute
contradicts
itself
by
instructing
universities
to
uphold
the
First
Amendment
but
mandating
the
schools
“adopt
policies
that
violate
those
very
constitutional
protections.”

Zimbabwe Breaks Ground With Carbon Credits With Corresponding Adjustments Under Article 6

The
credits
were
generated
by
a
clean
cookstove
project
led
by Cicada
Carbon
,
a
member
of
the Zimbabwe
Carbon
Association
,
local
media
has
reported.

It
is
said
to
be
the
first
private-sector
initiative
globally
to
receive
the
CA
designation—an
accounting
mechanism
that
prevents
double
counting
of
emissions
reductions
by
ensuring
they
are
not
claimed
by
both
the
host
country
and
the
buyer.

Approximately
112,000
credits
from
the
project
have
been
tagged
with
CAs,
with
up
to
3
million
credits
projected
over
five
years,
as
confirmed
by
Gold
Standard.

Under
Zimbabwe’s
Carbon
Trading
Regulations,
one-third
of
the
credits
will
be
reserved
as
levies.

The
development
positions
Zimbabwe
to
access
compliance
carbon
markets,
including
the
United
Nations’
aviation
offset
program, CORSIA.

A
technical
review
could
make
Cicada
Carbon’s
project
only
the
second
in
the
world
to
meet
CORSIA
eligibility
after
Guyana’s
REDD+
project.

The
move
could
offer
a
practical
reference
for
other
African
nations
looking
to
operationalize
Article
6
mechanisms
while
retaining
sovereign
control
over
their
emissions
reductions.

While
the
long-term
economic
effects
remain
to
be
seen,
this
milestone
reflects
a
broader
shift
toward
stronger
oversight
and
institutional
maturity
in
regional
carbon
markets.

Its
success,
however,
may
depend
on
how
effectively
countries
balance
investor
access
with
equitable
benefit-sharing
and
alignment
with
national
climate
policies.

Source:


Zimbabwe
Breaks
Ground
With
Carbon
Credits
With
Corresponding
Adjustments
Under
Article
6


Carbon
Herald

Mnangagwa hits back: Chiwenga’s dossier branded ‘treasonous’ in explosive politburo exchange

HARARE

President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
and
his
lieutenants
accused
his
deputy,
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga,
of
attempting
to
“undermine
a
constitutionally
elected
government”
and
“incite
despondency”
after
Chiwenga
tabled
a
searing
17-page
dossier
before
the
Zanu
PF
politburo
on
September
17
accusing
the
president
of
presiding
over
“corruption,
capture
and
betrayal”
of
the
ideals
of
the
2017
coup.

Mnangagwa’s
rebuttal

contained
in
a
document
authored
by
Zanu
PF’s
legal
secretary
and
Justice
Minister
Ziyambi
Ziyambi,
and
presented
to
the
Politburo
on
Tuesday

marks
the
most
direct
confrontation
yet
between
the
two
men
who
jointly
led
the
2017
military
intervention
that
ousted
Robert
Mugabe.

Ziyambi,
tabling
Mnangagwa’s
response,
described
Chiwenga’s
document
as
“fundamentally
flawed,
treasonous,
and
lacking
appreciation
of
party
procedures
and
the
national
constitution.”

“At
its
core,
the
document
advocates
for
the
unlawful
removal
of
a
constitutionally
elected
President,”
Ziyambi
wrote.
“Any
attempt
to
destabilise
or
subvert
a
constitutionally
elected
government
is
treasonous.”

Chiwenga’s
document,
which
he
presented
to
Mnangagwa
on
September
17,
opened
by
invoking
the
November
2017
coup
that
brought
the
pair
to
power.

“Comrade
President,
we
undertook
Operation
Restore
Legacy
with
a
sacred
mandate:
to
reclaim
our
nation
from
the
jaws
of
corruption
and
to
restore
the
dignity,
prosperity,
and
sovereignty
of
Zimbabwe,”
Chiwenga
wrote.

But
Mnangagwa’s
camp
shot
back
that
the
vice
president
was
trying
to
monopolise
credit
for
the
coup.

“It
is
denied
that
only
a
few
individuals,
particularly
the
writers
of
this
document,
sacrificed
their
lives
for
Operation
Restore
Legacy,”
Ziyambi
responded.
“Zimbabweans
from
all
walks
of
life
rose
and
participated.
Let
us
acknowledge
the
collective
effort
and
desist
from
claiming
heroism
for
work
done
by
many.”

Ziyambi
even
revealed
that
businessman
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei,
one
of
several
tycoons
Chiwenga
accused
of
“state
capture,”
had
bankrolled
the
2017
operation.

“For
the
record,
Mr.
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei
put
in
a
total
of
five
million
litres
of
fuel,
food
and
other
provisions
for
soldiers
as
requested
by
the
then
CDF,
General
Chiwenga.
Furthermore,
he
put
in
one
million
litres
of
fuel
and
US$1.6
million
to
the
party,”
the
response
says.

In
his
dossier,
Chiwenga
accused
Mnangagwa’s
allies

notably
Tagwirei,
Wicknell
Chivhayo,
Scott
Sakupwanya,
and
Delish
Nguwaya

of
“stealing
more
than
US$3.2
billion
of
government
funds,”
“corrupting
party
structures,”
and
“turning
the
president’s
private
office
into
a
place
where
key
government
decisions
are
made.”

“These
criminals
have
brazenly
looted
our
state
coffers
with
impunity,”
Chiwenga
charged.
“We
cannot
fold
our
hands
and
watch
these
criminals
like
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei,
Wicknell
Chivayo,
Scott
Sakupwanya,
and
Delish
Nguwaya
corrupt
and
bribe
our
structures
and
destroy
our
party.”

He
demanded
their
immediate
arrest,
adding
that
“the
time
for
silence
and
inaction
is
over.”

But
Mnangagwa’s
written
response
dismissed
the
allegations
as
“false,
malicious
and
reckless.”

“Zimbabwe
is
a
constitutional
democracy
with
well-established
institutions
to
deal
with
such
matters,”
Ziyambi
wrote.
“Individuals
have
no
legal
mandate
to
investigate
their
perceived
competitors
to
satisfy
their
personal
ego.
These
utterances
are
defamatory.”

Ziyambi
said
the
transactions
cited
by
Chiwenga,
including
the
Kuvimba
Mining
House
share
sale
and
the
Pomona
waste
management
deal,
had
full
cabinet
approval.

“Zanu
PF
does
not
own
any
shares
in
Sakunda
Holdings,”
Ziyambi
stated.
“All
contracts
were
concluded
in
compliance
with
the
Public
Procurement
and
Disposal
of
Public
Assets
Act.
At
no
time
did
ZEC
[Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission]
enter
into
a
contract
with
Chivayo
or
any
company
associated
with
him.”

Chiwenga
had
also
accused
Mnangagwa
of
plotting
to
extend
his
rule
beyond
2028
through
what
he
called
the
“so-called
2030
Agenda,”
warning
that
“we
are
repeating
the
ills
that
led
us
to
November
2017.”

Ziyambi
hit
back,
saying
the
2030
Agenda
was
in
fact
Resolution
Number
One
of
the
2024
Zanu
PF
National
People’s
Conference
and
therefore
fully
constitutional.

“The
president
is
a
constitutionalist
who
has
not
deviated
from
the
constitution
at
any
time,”
he
stated.
“There
were
thirty-one
resolutions
from
the
last
conference,
and
Agenda
2030
was
resolution
number
one.
There
is
therefore
nothing
unconstitutional
about
it.”

He
added
pointedly:
“Given
the
underlying
circumstances,
any
attempt
to
destabilise
the
government
on
the
basis
of
such
falsehoods
is
tantamount
to
treason.”

The
response
repeatedly
accused
Chiwenga
of
being
“in
denial”
and
“bitter.”

“The
author
has
clearly
demonstrated
his
bitterness,”
Ziyambi
said
at
one
point.
“To
question
what
happens
to
the
president
in
his
private
space
is
immature
and
intrusive.
A
good
leader
is
a
good
follower.
The
author
has
shown
he
is
not
a
good
follower
and
therefore
cannot
be
a
leader.”

He
also
accused
the
vice
president
of
hypocrisy,
alleging
that
members
of
the
presidium,
“including
the
author
himself,”
host
political
meetings
at
their
private
farms.

“No-one
has
ever
questioned
these
gatherings
nor
eavesdropped
on
what
takes
place
at
these
private
places,”
the
response
notes
acidly.

Chiwenga
had
further
claimed
that
exiled
former
minister
Jonathan
Moyo
was
behind
a
“treasonous
project”
dubbed
the
Breaking
Barriers
Initiative
(BBI),
allegedly
aimed
at
suspending
elections
until
2035.

Ziyambi’s
reply
dismissed
that
as
“strange
and
regrettable.”

“It
is
surprising
how
the
writer
got
hold
of
the
BBI
document
if
it
was
meant
for
parliament,”
he
wrote.
“There
is
nothing
treasonous
about
improving
a
political
system.
The
BBI,
which
is
being
referred
to,
is
actually
promoting
nation
building
and
cohesion.”

He
claimed
the
initiative
was
an
opposition
document
brought
to
him
by
CCC
interim
leader
Sengezo
Tshabangu
“in
the
company
of
a
General
Khumalo
from
the
Vice
President’s
Office.”

Ziyambi
likened
Chiwenga’s
memorandum
to
“narratives
perpetuated
by
hostile
media
and
rebels
like
Blessed
Geza.”

“The
document
bears
a
striking
resemblance
to
the
narratives
perpetuated
by
Geza,
Western
media
and
all
our
detractors
bent
on
undermining
our
sovereignty,”
Ziyambi
went
on.

He
recommended
that
politburo
and
central
committee
members
undergo
“a
reorientation
course
at
the
Chitepo
School
of
Ideology
on
the
supremacy
of
the
party
and
the
tenets
of
democracy.”

The
response
ended
with
a
warning:
“Any
attempt
to
stage
a
coup,
whether
through
treacherous
acts,
misrepresentation
of
facts,
incitement
of
violence,
or
willful
blindness
to
positive
development,
is
a
grave
offence
that
undermines
stability
and
unity
of
our
nation
and
should
be
liable
to
immediate
censure.”

Zanu
PF
insiders
said
Chiwenga
also
came
under
attack
from
Zanu
PF
national
chair
Oppah
Muchinguri,
who
told
him
they
all
went
to
war,
and
their
paths
split
at
independence
when
he
became
a
soldier
and
they
went
into
government.

Muchinguri,
ZimLive
heard,
told
Chiwenga

a
retired
commander
of
the
Zimbabwe
Defence
Forces

that
there
was
“nothing
special
about
coming
from
the
barracks.”

Zanu
PF
legal
secretary
Patrick
Chinamasa
reportedly
told
the
vice
president
that
his
criticism
of
the
land
tenure
implementation
committee,
led
by
Tagwirei,
ignored
the
fact
that
“the
president
owns
all
land.”

Chiwenga,
it
is
understood,
spoke
briefly.
He
reportedly
said:
“I’ve
listened
to
all
your
presentations
and
I’m
convinced
that
all
of
you
support
zvigananda.
It’s
okay.
I
acknowledge
it.“

The
room
reportedly
fell
silent.

Zanu
PF
insiders
say
the
two
documents
have
deepened
factional
rifts
at
the
top
of
the
ruling
party,
which
gathers
in
Mutare
this
week
for
its
annual
conference.
Tuesday’s
politburo
meeting
at
the
party
headquarters
in
Harare
was
followed
by
a
central
committee
meeting
on
Wednesday.

The
Chiwenga
dossier
was
reportedly
supported
by
several
retired
generals
and
some
members
of
the
Women’s
League,
while
Mnangagwa’s
backers
ensured
the
president’s
counter-document
was
adopted
without
debate.

Neither
Mnangagwa
nor
Chiwenga
have
publicly
commented.
But
party
officials
say
the
confrontation

the
first
open
exchange
between
the
two
leaders
since
2017

has
set
the
stage
for
an
explosive
showdown.

📎 Mnangagwa
Responds
to
Chiwenga
Dossier
in
Explosive
Politburo
Meeting

Do animals matter more than people?— MPs question Zimbabwe’s wildlife laws

The
issue
came
under
discussion
in
Parliament
on
Wednesday
last
week
when
MP
Elizabeth
Masuku
asked
the
Minister
of
Environment
about
the
government’s
policy
on
the
co-existence
of
people
and
wild
animals,
citing
incidents
in
Hwange
and
Tsholotsho.

“Since
a
lot
of
people
are
being
killed
by
these
animals,”
she
said,
“what
is
the
government
doing
to
protect
communities
living
near
wildlife
areas?”

The
Parks
and
Wildlife
Management
Bill,
Clause
9
Part
IIC
(161)(1),
provides
for
a
Human-Wildlife
Conflict
Relief
Fund
(HWCRF),
intended
to
offer
monetary
relief
to
victims
of
wildlife
encounters
that
result
in
death,
permanent
disability,
or
physical
injury.

However,
Section
161(2)
stipulates
that
no
person
shall
be
entitled
to
such
relief
if
they
are
injured,
maimed,
or
killed
while
illegally
harvesting
or
negligently
interfering
with
wild
animals.

Responding
to
the
concerns,
Minister
of
Justice,
Legal
and
Parliamentary
Affairs,
Ziyambi
Ziyambi,
said
policies
are
in
place
to
manage
coexistence
between
humans
and
wildlife
within
their
respective
territories.

“We
have
a
policy.
However,
once
in
a
while,
you
cannot
control
animals
crossing
into
areas
where
people
live,”
he
said.
“In
those
circumstances,
our
Parks
and
Wildlife
personnel
are
called
in
to
ensure
that
they
either
put
down
the
animals
or
take
them
back.”

He
added:
“We
have
a
policy
where
animals
stay
in
their
game
parks.
If
an
animal
strays
and
becomes
dangerous
to
the
inhabitants
of
that
area,
Parks
officials
will
come
and
put
that
animal
down.
However,
we
must
also
co-exist
with
our
wild
animals,
in
their
space
and
in
ours.”

Contributing
to
the
debate,
MP
Shakespear
Hamauswa
criticised
the
legal
framework
for
what
he
described
as
a
lack
of
fairness,
arguing
that
the
laws
appear
to
protect
animals
more
than
people.

“Why
has
the
government
not
put
in
place
a
law
that
says
when
a
person
kills
or
injures
a
wild
animal,
that
person
is
severely
sentenced,
yet,
on
the
other
hand,
when
a
wild
animal
attacks
a
human
being,
there
is
no
compensation
for
the
humans?”
he
asked.

“I
have
indicated
in
my
earlier
response
that
when
an
animal
strays
and
becomes
dangerous
to
human
beings,
many
times
Parks
and
Wildlife
personnel
put
it
down
rather
than
take
it
back
to
its
original
habitat,”
he
said.
“It
is
not
correct
to
say
that
the
law
favours
animals
over
human
beings.
The
animals
are
being
put
down,
and
human
beings
must
also
act
responsibly
around
wildlife.”

Police officer who declared himself as new boss sectioned under mental health act

HARARE

A
police
officer
who
grabbed
national
attention
in
August
after
declaring
himself
as
the
new
police
chief
has
been
indefinitely
committed
to
Chikurubi
Psychiatric
Unit
after
being
declared
mentally
unfit
to
stand
trial.

Harare
magistrate
Tapiwa
Kuhudzai
made
the
ruling
after
receiving
medical
reports
from
two
state
doctors
and
one
private
doctor,
all
confirming
that
Assistant
Inspector
Simbarashe
Mandizvidza
was
not
of
sound
mental
health.

Mandizvidza
had
been
charged
with
transmitting
false
information
with
intent
to
cause
harm,
breaches
of
the
Road
Traffic
Act,
and
causing
disaffection
among
police
or
defence
forces.

The
charges
stemmed
from
a
series
of
viral
recordings
Mandizvidza
made
while
at
his
official
residence
at
ZRP
Hatfield
Police
Camp.


He
made
declarations
giving
all
Chinese
nationals
living
and
doing
business
in
Zimbabwe
a
48-hour
ultimatum
to
leave.

He
had
also
been
accused
of
stealing
a
police
vehicle
after
misrepresenting
to
his
superior,
Fidios
Chiteure

the
officer
in
charge
of
Police
General
Headquarters
Pay
and
Records

that
he
had
been
sent
by
Commissioner
Makomo
to
use
a
police
Ford
Ranger
for
official
errands.

He
drove
the
vehicle
to
Waerera
Village
in
Bindura,
where
it
was
recovered.

Mandizvidza
will
be
committed
to
Chikurubi
Psychiatric
Unit
for
an
indefinite
period
and
his
prosecution
has
been
formally
abandoned
until
doctors
confirm
his
recovery.

Donna Adelson Sentenced To Life In Prison For Murder Of Her Law Professor Ex-Son-In-Law – Above the Law

Dan
Markel
was
a
law
professor
who
taught
Criminal
Law
at
Florida
State.
His
life
was
cut
short
on
June
18th,
2014
by

Sigfredo
Garcia

and
Luis
Rivera.
But
they
weren’t
the
only
ones
responsible.
Over
time
the
evidence
showed
that
Garcia
and
Rivera
were
paid
to
kill
him.
Markel’s
death
followed
a
heated
custody
battle
over
his
children
with
his
ex-wife
Wendi
Adelson.
Since
then
more
names
have
roped
in
to
his
murder:

Kathrine
Magbanua
,

Charlie
Adelson
,
and
most
recently
Donna
Adelson.
The
head
of
the
Adelson
family
has
finally
been
sentenced
on
charges
of
first-degree
murder
and
conspiracy
to
commit
murder.


ABC

has
coverage
on
the
sentencing:

Donna
Adelson,
the
matriarch
of
a
wealthy
South
Florida
family
who
was

convicted
in
the
hired
killing
of
her
former
son-in-law,

was
sentenced
Monday
to
life
in
prison
for
her
role
in
the
2014
murder-for-hire
of
Daniel
Markel.

As
it
stands,
she
was
sentenced
to
life
without
parole
in
addition
to
another
30
years
on
top.
Before
she
was
sentenced,
Adelson
seemed
to
be
about
as
far
from
a
“the
jig
is
up”
moment
as
you
could
imagine:

“What
happened
to
Danny
is
unforgivable.
But
I
am
an
innocent
woman
convicted
of
this
terrible
crime
without
evidence…”I’ve
always
respected
the
law.
I’ve
never
gotten
a
parking
ticket,
But
I’m
going
to
prison
for
a
murder
I
did
not
commit,”
she
added.

Those
sentiments
may
have
flown
(pun
intended)
when
you
were
on
your
way
to
board
a
one
way
flight
to
a
country
with
no
extradition
to
the
United
States,
but
they
ring
hollow
after
a
drawn
out
trial
where
the
jury
was
confident
in
a
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
verdict
after
seeing
the
evidence
you’ve
discounted.
That
said,
due
process
is
worth
preserving
no
matter
how
unsavory
of
a
crime
someone
was
accused
of.
Adelson
argued
that
the
jury’s
minds
were
swayed
by
years
of
negative
media
coverage
and
plans
to
appeal
the
outcome.


Donna
Adelson
Sentenced
To
Life
In
Prison
For
Hired
Killing
Of
Ex-Son-In-Law

[ABC]


Earlier
:

Jury
Reaches
Verdict
In
Donna
Adelson
Trial


TikTok
Fails
To
Win
Donna
Adelson
A
New
Trial


Donna
Adelson’s
Lawyer
Pushes
To
Exclude
Divorce
Evidence
From
Trial


Donna
Adelson
Pushes
Judge
For
Another
Delay


Donna
Adelson’s
Attempt
To
Disqualify
Judge
Fails



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Trump Is Right: Ban Gender In College Admissions – Above the Law

(Image
via
Getty)



Ed.
note
:
Please
welcome
Vivia
Chen
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
“The
Ex-Careerist,” here.

BRACE
YOURSELF,
PEOPLE.
I
have
something
nice
to
say
about
Trump:
I
don’t
think
his
recent
proposal
to
the
nine
colleges
was
completely
nuts.

Sure,
the
Compact
for
Academic
Excellence
in
Higher
Education

forces
Trump’s
cultural
agenda
down
the
colleges’
throats

from
abiding
by
the
administration’s
definition
of
gender,
bathroom
rules
(has
there
ever
been
a
presidency
so
potty-obsessed?)
to
SAT/ACT
mandates,
and
promotion
of
“diversity
of
viewpoints”
(colleges
commit
to
“abolishing
institutional
units”
that
“belittle”
conservative
ideas).

And,
yeah,
the
tone
was
a
tad
threatening:
“Institutions
of
higher
education
are
free
to
develop
models
and
values
other
than
those
below,
if
the
institution
elects
to
forgo
federal
benefits.”

But
for
colleges
that
sign
on,
the
benefits
are
awesome:
priority
access
to
funds
and
a
presumption
that
they
are
in
compliance
with
civil
rights
laws.
It’s
like
getting
a
TSA
pre-check
at
the
airport

shorter
lines
and
automatic
exemption
from
the
terrorist
list.

The
lucky
institutions
that
got
the
president’s ultimatum offer
are
the
University
of
Arizona,
Brown
University,
Dartmouth
College,
MIT,
the
University
of
Pennsylvania,
the
University
of
Southern
California,
the
University
of
Texas,
Vanderbilt
University,
and
the
University
of
Virginia.
Why
these
nine,
who
knows?
(Funny
how
it
was
also nine
law
firms
 that
capitulated
to
Trump.
Must
be
his
lucky
number.)

So
far,
only MIT
has
refused
 to
comply.
The
others
have
been
largely
quiet

except
for
the
University
of
Texas,
which
gushed:
“We
enthusiastically
look
forward
to
engaging
with
university
officials
and
reviewing
the
compact
immediately.”
(It’s
Texas,
okay?)

Those
who
value
educational
independence
are
alarmed,
including
some
on
the
right.
“This
is
not
engagement,” writes conservative
David
Ramadan,
a
professor
at
George
Mason
University,
in
USA
Today.
“This
is
coercion

an
attempt
to
remake
higher
education
through
executive
fiat
and
financial
threat.”


Even
the
Wall
Street
Journal
 thinks
the
proposal
went
too
far,
though
its
main
objection
seems
to
be
the
five-year
tuition
freeze
and
the
15%
limit
on
international
students

that
free
market
stuff

rather
than
the
threat
to
free
speech
and
educational
autonomy.


So
what’s
positive
about
this
deal? 
Well,
who
doesn’t
like
freezing
tuition?
One
thing
the
left
and
the
right
can
agree
on
is
that
the
price
of
college
is
too
damn
high.
Tuition
at
Brown,
Penn,
Vanderbilt,
Dartmouth,
and
USC

to
name
some
colleges
on
Trump’s
hit
list

is
well-over
$72,000
a
year,
not
counting
room
and
board.

But
what
really
knocked
my
socks
off
was
the
directive
that
colleges
eliminate
gender
in
admissions,
along
with
race,
ethnicity,
and
sexual
orientation.

Does
the
Trump
administration
realize
what
this
will
mean
for
the
future
of
American
men?


Truth
is,
boys
and
men
need
an
extra
bump

to
play
in
the
sandbox.
“Affirmative
action
for
men
has
been
an
open
secret
for
decades,”
says
admissions
consultant
Anna
Ivey,
a
former
admissions
dean
at
the
University
of
Chicago
Law
School.
To
opponents
of
DEI,
though,
“affirmative
action
just
means
women
and
people
of
color,”
Ivey
tells
me.

Fact
is
females outperform
males
 from
the
get
go

and
men
are
not
catching
up.
Women
now
represent
the
majority
in
undergraduate
institutions
(58%
as
of
2020),
law
schools
(56%
in
2024),
and
medical
schools
(55%
in
2024).
And
in
Biglaw,
women outnumber men
in
the
associate
ranks.
(Interestingly,
women
make
up
only
42%
of
MBA
students.)

As
any
parent
who’s
played
the
school
admissions
game
knows,
boys
get
brownie
points.
I
can’t
tell
you
how
many
open
houses
I’ve
been
to

from
nursery
schools
to
colleges

where
the
admissions
officer
talks
about
the
importance
of
striving
for
a
“gender-balanced”
class.
As
the
mother
of
girls,
I
know
the
subtext:
too
bad
your
kid
isn’t
a
boy.

But
what
happens
if
gender
considerations
are
tossed
out
the
window
and
admission
is
based
solely
on
test
scores,
grades,
and
talent?
The
number
of
girls
and
women
in
higher
education
will
soar.
No
longer
will
they
have
to
give
up
their
seat
for
some
dithering,
mediocre
dude!
And
before
you
know
it,
women
will
comprise
70%,
maybe
80%,
of
all
college
students
in
this
country.
And
dominate
the
professions
and
run
America

leaving
men
in
the
dust.


Poor
men.
It
seems
they’ve
been
screwed.

Just
when
they
thought
this
administration
was
going
to
reset
America
and
make
masculinity
great
again,
it’s
women
who’ll
win
with
this
policy.
Oh,
what
havoc
Trump
has
wreaked
by
pulling
the
DEI
rug
out
from
under
the
men
of
America.

Of
course,
none
of
that
will
happen
because
this
talk
about
instilling
a
culture
of
meritocracy
is
pure
bull.
One
glaring
example
of
the
chicanery:
there’s
no
mention
about
ridding
preferential
treatment
for
children
of
alumni
or
big
donors.
(Not
that
I’d
ever
suggest
that
Trump
and
his
children
didn’t
get
into
Wharton
based
on
their
stellar
academic
records,
or
that Jared
Kushner’s
admission
to
Harvard
 had
anything
to
do
with
his
dad’s
$2.5
million
donation
to
that
college.)

All
this
is
to
say
that
privilege
has
its
privileges,
and
affirmative
action
for
men
will
continue
unabated

with
Pete
Hegseth,
our brawniest
secretary
of
war
,
as
the
ultimate
poster
child.
Except
we’re
not
allowed
to
call
it
that,
because
how
can
something
as
low
rent
as
affirmative
action
possibly
apply
to
them?




Subscribe
to
read
more
at
The
Ex-Careerist….




Vivia
Chen writes “The
Ex-Careerist”
 column
on
Substack
where
she
unleashes
her
unvarnished
views
about
the
intersection
of
work,
life,
and
politics.
A
former
lawyer,
she
was
an
opinion
columnist
at
Bloomberg
Law
and
The
American
Lawyer.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack
by
clicking
here: