The
country
scored
67.8%
on
Quality
of
Life
when
assessed
against
an
income-adjusted
benchmark.
HRMI
described
this
as
close
to
the
Sub-Saharan
Africa
regional
average.
“Zimbabwe
scores
67.8%
on
Quality
of
Life
when
scored
against
the
‘income-adjusted’
benchmark.
Compared
with
the
other
countries
in
Sub-Saharan
Africa,
Zimbabwe
is
performing
close
to
average
on
Quality
of
Life
rights,”
the
report
stated.
In
economic
and
social
rights,
Zimbabwe
recorded
strong
results
in
key
areas.
The
right
to
education
scored
85.6%,
the
right
to
food
84.6%,
and
the
right
to
health
85.0%.
These
figures
indicate
notable
progress
in
the
provision
of
basic
services.
However,
the
country
performed
poorly
in
other
essential
areas.
The
right
to
housing
was
rated
at
38.3%,
while
the
right
to
work
received
a
score
of
45.4%,
highlighting
ongoing
challenges
in
access
to
adequate
shelter
and
employment
opportunities.
Zimbabwe
also
fell
short
on
civil
and
political
rights.
The
nation
was
awarded
a
score
of
5.7
out
of
10
for
“Safety
from
the
State”,
a
measure
reflecting
risks
such
as
arbitrary
arrest,
torture,
forced
disappearance
and
extrajudicial
killing.
“Zimbabwe’s
Safety
from
the
State
score
of
5.7
out
of
10
suggests
that
many
people
are
not
safe
from
one
or
more
of
the
following:
arbitrary
arrest,
torture
and
ill-treatment,
forced
disappearance,
execution,
or
extrajudicial
killing,”
HRMI
said.
The
breakdown
of
these
results
shows
Zimbabwe
scored
3.8
for
protection
from
arbitrary
arrest,
4.5
for
freedom
from
torture
and
ill-treatment,
6.4
for
protection
from
enforced
disappearance,
7.3
for
protection
from
extrajudicial
execution,
and
a
full
10.0
for
the
death
penalty.
On
empowerment
rights
which
include
freedoms
of
speech,
assembly
and
political
participation,
Zimbabwe
received
an
overall
score
of
3.7
out
of
10,
described
by
HRMI
as
“below
average”.
“Zimbabwe’s
Empowerment
score
of
3.7
out
of
10
suggests
that
many
people
are
not
enjoying
their
civil
liberties
and
political
freedoms,
including
freedom
of
speech,
assembly
and
association,
democratic
rights,
and
religion
and
belief,”
the
report
stated.
Individual
scores
for
empowerment
rights
were
low,
with
3.6
for
freedom
of
assembly
and
association,
3.8
for
freedom
of
opinion
and
expression,
4.1
for
participation
in
government,
and
9.0
for
freedom
of
religion
and
belief.
HRMI
noted
that
while
there
is
insufficient
data
to
enable
regional
comparisons
on
civil
and
political
rights
across
Sub-Saharan
Africa,
Zimbabwe
is
performing
worse
than
average
when
compared
with
other
countries
in
the
global
sample.
“For
civil
and
political
rights,
we
don’t
have
sufficient
data
across
Sub-Saharan
African
countries
to
allow
for
a
regional
comparison.
However,
when
compared
to
the
other
countries
in
our
sample,
Zimbabwe
is
performing
lower
than
average
on
empowerment
rights,”
HRMI
said.
Zimbabwe’s
population
stands
at
16.3
million,
with
a
GDP
per
capita
of
$2,156,
according
to
2023
estimates.
The
bill,
designed
to
align
with
Zimbabwe’s
constitutional
principles
and
development
goals,
has
sparked
debate
over
whether
its
focus
on
women
unintentionally
excludes
the
challenges
faced
by
men
in
communities
across
the
country.
Thabiso
Nyathi,
an
administrative
officer
at
the
Zimbabwe
Gender
Commission,
warned
that
without
careful
balancing,
the
legislation
could
undermine
the
country’s
broader
goal
of
gender
parity.
“The
Gender
Equality
Bill
has
been
more
about
women’s
empowerment,
but
when
we
return
to
the
communities,
men
are
also
part
of
the
equation,”
Nyathi
said.
“It
appears
men
are
being
sidelined.
We
are
promoting
women
while
neglecting
men’s
challenges
of
representation.”
Nyathi
stressed
that
the
bill
must
reflect
Zimbabwe’s
50/50
campaign,
which
targets
equal
representation
of
both
men
and
women
in
all
spheres
of
life.
“We
are
supposed
to
work
within
the
framework
of
the
50/50
campaign.
If
the
bill
focuses
solely
on
women,
we
risk
creating
another
gap,
this
time
for
men,”
he
said.
“Men
are
also
asking:
who
will
represent
us?”
The
delay
in
finalising
the
bill
also
coincides
with
concerns
over
Zimbabwe’s
National
Development
Strategy
1
(NDS1),
the
five-year
economic
blueprint
guiding
the
country
towards
its
Vision
2030
goal
of
becoming
an
upper-middle-income
economy.
Some
stakeholders
argued
that
women
remain
largely
disconnected
from
NDS1
opportunities,
limiting
their
ability
to
fully
benefit
from
national
development
programmes.
“We
need
to
encourage
women
to
participate
actively,
especially
when
new
laws
are
being
drafted,”
Nyathi
said.
“Their
voices
must
be
heard,
not
to
elevate
women
above
men,
but
to
maintain
the
principle
of
balance
set
by
the
50/50
campaign.”
The
Zimbabwe
Gender
Commission
also
moved
to
reassure
the
public
that
reports
of
gender-related
discrimination
or
abuse
are
treated
with
strict
confidentiality.
Agripha
Mabhandi,
the
commission’s
investigative
officer,
said
all
cases
are
handled
discreetly,
protecting
the
identity
of
complainants.
“When
someone
reports
in
person,
we
are
guided
by
investigative
ethics,
confidentiality
is
key,”
Mabhandi
said.
“We
focus
on
the
case,
not
the
individual.
Each
report
is
treated
as
a
national
concern
because
many
others
may
suffer
in
silence.”
Mabhandi
added
that
the
commission
offers
various
reporting
channels,
including
anonymous
submissions
and
toll-free
lines.
As
consultations
continue,
the
Gender
Equality
Bill’s
fate
remains
uncertain.
But
officials
say
resolving
the
inclusivity
concerns
is
essential
before
the
draft
law
is
ready
for
parliamentary
debate.
If
passed,
the
bill
is
expected
to
become
a
landmark
measure
shaping
Zimbabwe’s
long-term
efforts
to
achieve
genuine
gender
equality
under
Vision
2030.
For
those
keeping
score
in
the
high-stakes
game
of
Constitutional
Calvinball,
that
is
DVD
v.
DHS,
the
Supreme
Court’s
conservative
majority
just
issued
a
one-paragraph
shadow
docket
ruling
staying
a
preliminary
injunction
entered
by
Judge
Brian
Murphy
of
the
District
of
Massachusetts
(and
blessed
by
the
First
Circuit)
that
had
prohibited
the
Trump
administration
from
deporting
people
to
third
countries
without
affording
them
a
reasonable
opportunity
to
argue
that
maybe
they
shouldn’t
be
dropped
into
the
middle
of
a
civil
war
where
they
don’t
speak
the
language.
And
yet,
as
of
right
now,
the
administration
still
can’t
deport
those
people
to
South
Sudan
—
or
Libya,
or
any
other
flaming
geopolitical
dumpster
the
admin
has
on
speed
dial
for
warehousing
human
lives
—
because
Judge
Murphy
clarified
immediately
after
the
release
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
opinion
that
his
pause
remains
in
effect.
How
is
this
possible?
Thank
Justice
Sotomayor
and
the
dissenting
justices.
The
case
is
one
steaming
hot
ball
of
contemptuous
administrative
action,
with
the
administration
repeatedly
breaching
orders
while
playing
dumb
and
pointing
the
finger
at
hypertechnical
excuses
like,
“oh,
DHS
didn’t
deport
them
in
violation
of
the
order…
we
just
put
them
on
a
DOD
plane
and
we’re
as
shocked
as
you
that
our
personal
Deportation
Uber
then
flew
to
Africa!”
The
Supreme
Court
had
ruled
unanimously
earlier
this
year
in
another
case
that
the
Trump
administration
needed
to
faithfully
respect
due
process
rights
when
it
goes
about
deporting
people.
The
administration
took
that
order
and
made
up
fake
quotes
from
it
to
keep
doing
what
it
wanted.
In
DVD
v.
DHS,
the
administration
decided
to
test
drive
just
how
much
it
can
get
away
with
and
last
night,
the
conservative
majority
decided
that
the
government
can
have
a
little
arbitrary,
unconstitutional
activity
as
a
treat.
For
old-school
Simpsons
fans,
the
conservatives
adopted
Bart
Simpson’s
strategy
for
convincing
the
obedience
school
trainer
that
his
dog
had
passed
and
came
out
just
as
convincing.
But
since
the
shadow
docket’s
whole
appeal
is
allowing
the
Court
to
make
consequential
rulings
without
having
to
explain
itself,
the
liberal
dissenters
took
the
opportunity
to
explain
the
opinion
for
them.
The
majority’s
whole
opinion
reads:
The
application
for
stay
presented
to
JUSTICE
JACKSON
and
by
her
referred
to
the
Court
is
granted.
The
April
18, 2025,
preliminary
injunction
of
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Massachusetts,
case
No.
25–cv– 10676,
is
stayed
pending
the
disposition
of
the
appeal
in
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
First
Circuit
and
disposition
of
a
petition
for
a
writ
of
certiorari,
if
such
writ
is
timely
sought.
Should
certiorari
be
denied,
this
stay
shall terminate
automatically.
In
the
event
certiorari
is
granted,
the
stay
shall
terminate
upon
the
sending
down
of
the
judgment
of
the
Court.
Maintaining
the
status
quo
is
an
admirable
justification
for
equitable
action.
Avoiding
irreversible
harm
is,
however,
a
much
better
one.
There’s
no
good
reason
given
why
DHS
needs
to
throw
these
people
into
South
Sudan
right
now
as
opposed
to
waiting
until
the
case
concludes,
except
to
the
extent
the
administration
hopes
to
moot
the
case
via
ethnic
cleansing.
And,
yes,
some
of
the
key
players
here
are
objectively
awful
people
but
nonetheless
have
the
right
to
a
real
hearing
on
whether
or
not
they
can
be
sent
into
a
warzone.
There’s
not
really
any
doubt
that
the
administration
expected
the
Supreme
Court
to
open
the
door
to
these
deportations.
What
they
ended
up
with
is
like
a
mechanic
returning
a
car
that
won’t
start
by
announcing
that
they
fixed
the
cigarette
lighter.
Because
while
the
majority
didn’t
want
to
explain
itself,
the
dissenters
did.
Over
the
course
of
19
pages,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor,
with
Kagan
and
Jackson
backing
her,
blasted
the
ruling
as
little
more
than
rubberstamping
contempt.
A
“gross
an
abuse
of
the
Court’s
equitable
discretion”
as
she
put
it.
But
she
also
dropped
her
own
invitation
to
play
technicalities.
First,
the
District
Court’s
remedial
orders
are
not
properly
before
this
Court
because
the
Government
has
not
appealed
them,
nor
sought
a
stay
pending
a
forthcoming
appeal.
The
preliminary
injunction
addressed
by
the
majority
is
not
the
only
order.
The
dissent
raises
this
point
as
part
of
its
argument
that
the
government
failed
to
meet
its
burden
to
demonstrate
irreparable
harm,
a
burden
the
majority
didn’t
bother
to
explain
how
the
government
could’ve
met
because
it
can’t.
Sotomayor
cleverly
notes
that
if
the
government
claims
the
harm
is
based
solely
in
the
individuals
it
intended
to
send
to
South
Sudan
(but
have
temporarily
parked
in
Djibouti)
then
the
preliminary
injunction
isn’t
responsible
for
that,
it’s
Judge
Murphy’s
subsequent
remedial
order
that
the
government
never
appealed
to
the
Supreme
Court.
Judge
Murphy
saw
the
opening
and
went
right
for
it.
Judge
Brian
E.
Murphy:
ELECTRONIC
ORDER
ENTERED.
Plaintiffs’
Emergency
Motion,
Dkt.
174,
is
DENIED
as
unnecessary,
subject
to
the
below.
The
Court’s
May
21,
2025
Order
on
Remedy,
Dkt.
119,
remains
in
full
force
and
effect,
notwithstanding
today’s
stay
of
the
Preliminary
Injunction.
DHS
v.
D.V.D.,
No.
24A1153,
slip
op.
at
12
(S.
Ct.
Jun.
23,
2025)
(Sotomayor,
J.,
dissenting)
(“[T]he
District
Court’s
remedial
orders
[were]
not
properly
before
[the
Supreme]
Court
because
the
Government
has
not
appealed
them,
nor
sought
a
stay
pending
a
forthcoming
appeal.”).
For
the
avoidance
of
doubt,
and
to
the
extent
Plaintiffs
N.M.
and
D.D.
are
indeed
subject
to
third-country
removal,
see
Dkt.
175
at
5-7,
N.M.
and
D.D.
are
included
among
the
individuals
referenced
in
the
May
21,
2025
Order.
(BAH)
Modified
on
6/23/2025
(PK).
(Entered:
06/23/2025)
The
remedial
order
—
which,
for
the
record,
requires
only
what
the
government
ASKED
FOR
before
turning
around
and
complaining
that
their
own
request
was
too
onerous
—
is
the
one
that
requires
the
private
“credible-fear
interview”
with
counsel
and
an
interpreter.
This,
Sotomayor’s
dissent
notes
and
Judge
Murphy
agrees,
is
separate
from
the
class-wide
preliminary
injunction
and
the
source
of
all
the
supposed
harms
the
administration
asserts.
While
this
dispute
could’ve
been
avoided
had
the
government
abided
by
the
preliminary
injunction,
now
that
it
chose
not
to,
what
is
to
be
done
with
these
people
in
front
of
this
court
becomes
a
wholly
separate
inquiry
that
no
one
properly
appealed.
Civil
Procedure
for
the
win.
It’s
incredibly
satisfying
to
see
a
justice
finally
stop
bringing
knives
to
the
gun
fight.
Justice
Sotomayor’s
dissent
took
the
deliberate
murky
abyss
that
the
majority
celebrates
with
its
shadow
docket
opinions
and
applied
a
little
meaning
atop
the
empty
signifier.
Throughout
this
case,
the
administration
has
acted
with
utter
contempt
for
the
court,
relying
on
juvenile
semantic
games
to
subvert
the
system.
If
they
want
to
engage
in
technical
readings,
well,
the
justices
read
the
rulebook
sideways
too.
And
they’re
much
smarter.
In
a
sane
system,
none
of
this
would
be
necessary.
Majority
opinions
would
have
to
defend
themselves
and
the
government
wouldn’t
be
a
bad
faith
proto-Eddie
Haskell
every
time
it’s
summoned
before
a
judge.
But
here
we
are
and
the
dissent
acted
accordingly
with
the
hand
it
was
dealt.
I
wrote
yesterday
about
the
Puerto
Rico
Supreme
Court’s
adoption
of
the
duty
of
technology
competence,
done
as
part
of
its
promulgation
of
new
rules
of
professional
conduct
to
replace
a
code
of
ethics
that
had
governed
lawyers’
professional
conduct
in
Puerto
Rico
since
1970.
One,
as
I
explained
in
yesterday’s
post,
was
to
add
a
separate
rule
devoted
to
the
duty
of
technology
competence,
rather
than
address
the
duty
through
a
comment
to
the
general
rule
on
competence,
as
the
ABA
does.
The
other
—
and
potentially
more
significant
—
divergence
was
to
revise
Rule
5.4
to
allow
non-lawyers
to
have
ownership
interests
in
law
firms.
Until
now,
only
Arizona
and
the
District
of
Columbia
have
allowed
non-lawyer
ownership
of
law
firms.
D.C.
has
allowed
this
since
1991,
and
Arizona
eliminated
the
ban
on
non-lawyer
ownership
in
2020.
Puerto
Rico’s
new
conduct
rules
retain
Rule
5.4’s
general
prohibition
against
a
lawyer
sharing
fees
with
a
non-lawyer.
But
with
respect
to
ownership,
it
adds
a
new
section
(b)
that
reads
as
follows
(translation
via
ChatGPT):
(b)
A
legal
practitioner
may
practice
in
a
law
office
where
an
ownership
interest
is
held
by
a
non-lawyer
only
if:
The
law
office
provides
for
the
collective
fulfillment
of
the
responsibility
to
offer
free
legal
services
to
indigent
persons;
Every
non-lawyer
with
an
ownership
interest
must
ensure
that
the
office
is
operated
only
by
persons
admitted
to
the
legal
profession
in
Puerto
Rico.
The
legal
practitioner
must
represent
the
non-lawyer
owner
in
exercising
all
voting
rights
and
all
other
matters
related
to
the
law
office.
They
must
also
ensure
compliance
with
the
rules
of
professional
responsibility
and
notify
the
Supreme
Court
once
the
arrangement
begins.
By
January
15
of
each
year,
they
must
file
with
the
Clerk
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Puerto
Rico
an
affidavit
stating
the
number
of
attorneys
in
the
firm,
the
dates
and
amounts
of
all
investments
made
by
the
non-lawyer
owner,
and
the
profits
received
by
that
person
in
the
previous
calendar
year;
Neither
the
non-lawyer
owner
nor
any
designated
agent
shall
engage
in
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law.
Additionally,
the
only
value
provided
by
the
non-lawyer
owner
in
exchange
for
their
ownership
interest
must
be
money,
and
the
owner
or
their
agents
shall
not
provide
any
services
to
the
law
office,
including
but
not
limited
to
marketing
services;
The
non-lawyer
owner
shall
not
interfere
with
the
independent
professional
judgment
of
the
legal
practitioner
or
the
attorney-client
relationship;
Information
relating
to
the
representation
of
a
client
shall
be
protected
as
required
by
Rule
1.6;
The
arrangement
described
in
subsection
(2)
shall
not
contravene
Rule
1.5;
The
legal
practitioner
informs
the
client
that
an
ownership
interest
in
the
law
office
is
held
by
a
non-lawyer;
and
Non-lawyer
owners
may
acquire
no
more
than
49%
of
the
shares
of
the
law
office.
Not
Supported
By
Rules
Committee
Although
the
overall
development
of
the
new
conduct
rules
was
accomplished
through
the
work
of
a
special,
court-appointed
committee,
that
committee
had
not
recommended
this
change
to
Rule
5.4.
The
Supreme
Court
did
not
provide
a
rationale
or
explanation
of
its
decision
to
change
the
rule
on
non-lawyer
ownership.
However,
it
did
say
that
it
will
conduct
an
evaluation
of
the
new
rule’s
effectiveness
three
years
after
it
takes
effect.
The
court
assigned
the
task
of
conducting
that
assessment
to
the
same
committee
that
drafted
the
recommended
rules,
now
renamed
as
the
Committee
on
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct.
One
Justice
Dissented
While
the
court
did
not
elaborate
on
its
reasons
for
adopting
the
new
Rule
5.4,
one
member
of
the
court,
Associate
Justice
Luis
F.
Estrella
Martínez,
wrote
a
detailed
dissent
discussing
various
components
of
the
new
conduct
rules,
including
Rule
5.4.
Justice
Estrella
Martínez
wrote
that
he
did
not
agree
with
this
change
“due
to
the
potentially
harmful
consequences
it
may
bring.”
(Here
again,
translations
are
via
ChatGPT.)
“[A]llowing
this
source
of
funding
in
Puerto
Rico
law
firms
could
represent
a
significant
risk
to
the
autonomy
and
independence
of
the
professional
judgment
of
the
attorneys
within
them,”
he
wrote.
Justice
Estrella
Martínez
expressed
concern
that
investors
in
law
firms
would
typically
be
driven
by
purely
economic
interests,
“which
does
not
guarantee
an
improvement
in
the
availability
or
quality
of
legal
services
for
the
people
of
Puerto
Rico.”
He
also
raised
the
concern
that
the
court
lacks
disciplinary
authority
over
investors
who
are
not
attorneys.
“As
a
result,
such
investors
could
influence
legal
decisions
without
being
subject
to
the
same
ethical
and
professional
responsibilities
as
attorneys,”
he
wrote.
While
acknowledging
the
models
adopted
in
Arizona,
D.C.,
and
Utah,
he
thought
Puerto
Rico
should
have
waited
to
observe
their
experiences
before
adopting
this
change.
“So
far,
we
have
not
seen
these
sectors
partner
with
law
firms
to
litigate
on
behalf
of
the
environment
or
vulnerable
populations,”
he
wrote.
“We
must
not
allow
the
principle
of
access
to
justice
to
be
used
as
a
pretext
to
perpetuate
inequality
or
to
excessively
commercialize
the
practice
of
law.”
*
Supreme
Court
greenlights
deportations
to
third
countries
without
an
opportunity
to
argue
that
maybe
it
violates
their
rights
to
drop
them
into
a
warzone.
[AP]
*
Here’s
a
rundown
of
that
case
if
you’re
interested
in
all
the
nuances.
[Lawfare]
*
Profile
of
Mexico’s
most
powerful
indigenous
lawyer,
new
Chief
Justice
Hugo
Aguilar
Ortiz.
[NY
Times]
*
Simpson
Thacher
hyping
its
tech
deals…
basically
anything
to
make
you
forget
that
they’re
deputized
to
the
Trump
administration.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Ninth
Circuit
strikes
down
California
law
limiting
people
to
one
gun
purchase
per
month.
“[W]e
doubt
anyone
would
think
government
could
limit
citizens’
free
speech
right
to
one
protest
a
month…”
which
is
true
and
probably
why
the
First
Amendment
doesn’t
have
the
word
“regulated”
right
there
in
its
text.
[ABA
Journal]
HARARE
–
Zimbabwe’s
free
air
ambulances
are
being
flown
and
maintained
by
Russian
pilots
and
technicians
because
of
a
skills
shortage
locally,
health
minister
Douglas
Mombeshora
has
told
the
National
Assembly.
In
an
opaque
transaction
in
May
2023,
the
government
acquired
32
helicopters
from
Russian
at
a
cost
of
US$10
million
each,
with
12
assigned
to
be
used
as
air
ambulances
while
the
rest
were
given
to
police
and
the
military.
It
later
emerged
that
the
helicopters
were
acquired
with
no
plan,
and
the
air
ambulance
service
would
not
start
until
July
2024
–
a
year
later.
Currently,
three
helicopters
are
flying
the
air
ambulance
service
–
two
in
Harare
and
one
in
Bulawayo
–
with
nine
other
choppers
still
grounded.
As
of
last
Wednesday,
at
least
411
patients
with
life-threatening
conditions
had
been
airlifted
to
hospitals
in
Harare
and
Bulawayo,
Mombeshora
said.
They
include
women
with
pregnancy
complications
and
accident
victims,
he
added.
“The
running
of
the
helicopters
is
estimated
at
US$36,000
per
month,”
Mombeshora
told
the
National
Assembly,
responding
to
a
question
by
Emakhandeni-Luveve
MP
Discent
Collins
Bajila.
Mombeshora
added:
“To
date,
345
patients
have
been
flown
to
the
Harare
base
at
Sally
Mugabe
Central
Hospital,
while
66
patients
were
evacuated
to
the
Bulawayo
base
at
the
United
Bulawayo
Hospitals.
These
cases
have
included
maternity
complications,
premature
births,
and
other
critical
emergencies.
Many
lives
have
been
saved.”
He
said
they
were
planning
to
position
more
air
ambulances
in
Victoria
Falls,
Mutare,
and
Masvingo.
But
Mombeshora
admitted
that
there
were
currently
no
pilots
for
the
helicopters.
“The
air
ambulance
assets—namely
the
helicopters—are
wholly
owned
by
the
government
of
Zimbabwe,”
he
explained.
“Operating
these
aircraft
requires
highly
technical
expertise,
including
checks
by
IATA-certified
engineering
technicians
before
and
after
each
flight.
He
said
the
government
had
recently
signed
a
contract
with
Game
Drive,
a
technical
aviation
operator,
to
provide
qualified
pilots
and
technicians.
The
company
is
also
tasked
with
training
Zimbabwean
personnel
to
eventually
take
over
operations
from
the
Russians.
HARARE
–
Six
people
died
on
Sunday
in
a
head-on
collision
between
a
Honda
Fit
and
a
truck
near
Mutare,
police
said.
The
driver
of
the
Honda
Fit
driving
towards
Mutare
with
six
people
on
board
attempted
to
overtake
a
tractor
at
a
blind
spot
and
rammed
into
a
Sino
Howo
truck
headed
in
the
opposite
direction
on
the
Harare-Mutare
road,
police
spokesman
Commissioner
Paul
Nyathi
said.
The
accident
happened
at
around
7.30PM.
“As
a
result
of
the
crash,
all
six
occupants
of
the
Honda
Fit
vehicle
died
on
the
spot.
The
bodies
were
taken
to
Rusape
General
Hospital
for
post-mortem,”
Nyathi
said.
“The
Zimbabwe
Republic
Police
will
release
the
names
of
victims
after
their
next
of
kin
have
been
notified.”
Police
urged
motorists
to
exercise
caution
on
the
roads
and
refrain
from
overtaking
when
it
is
not
safe
to
do
so.
The
Zimbabwean
becomes
both
the
first
woman
and
the
first
African
to
lead
the
global
sporting
body.
In
a
symbolic
handover
ceremony,
outgoing
IOC
President
Thomas
Bach
presented
Coventry
with
the
key
to
the
IOC
headquarters,
saying:
In
this
spirit
of
gratitude,
confidence
and
joy,
I
hand
over
the
keys
of
Olympic
House
to
Mrs
Kirsty
Coventry,
the
10th
president
of
the
International
Olympic
Committee.
Now
she
makes
history.
In
her
speech,
Coventry
thanked
Bach
for
keeping
the
IOC
united
during
“some
of
the
most
turbulent
times,”
and
said:
I
can’t
believe
that
in
1992
when
I
had
the
dream
of
going
to
the
Olympic
Games
and
winning
a
gold
medal
for
Zimbabwe,
that
I’d
be
standing
here
with
all
of
you,
getting
to
make
those
dreams
come
true
for
more
young
people
around
the
world.
Back
in
March,
Coventry
surprised
many
by
winning
the
IOC
presidency
in
just
one
round
of
voting,
securing
49
out
of
97
possible
votes.
Juan
Antonio
Samaranch
Jr.
received
28
votes,
while
World
Athletics
president
Sebastian
Coe
garnered
eight.
At
41,
Coventry
becomes
the
youngest
IOC
president
since
Pierre
de
Coubertin,
the
founder
of
the
modern
Olympic
Games.
The
Frenchman
established
the
IOC
in
1894
and
assumed
its
presidency
two
years
later
at
the
age
of
33.
A
former
world-class
swimmer
from
Zimbabwe,
Coventry
rose
to
prominence
at
the
2004
Athens
Olympics,
where
she
won
gold
in
the
200-meter
backstroke.
She
repeated
that
feat
in
Beijing
in
2008.
In
total,
she
claimed
two
Olympic
gold
medals,
four
silver,
and
one
bronze,
making
her
Africa’s
most
successful
female
Olympian.
Only
Ethiopia’s
long-distance
legend
Tirunesh
Dibaba,
with
three
gold
and
two
bronze
medals,
has
achieved
more
Olympic
success
among
African
athletes.
By
the
end
of
her
competitive
career,
Coventry
had
competed
in
five
Olympic
Games,
set
multiple
world
records,
and
established
herself
as
one
of
the
most
accomplished
swimmers
in
World
Championship
history.
Trump-Fighting
Firm
Lays
Off
Staff:
Best
of
luck
to
the
former
Perkins
Coie
staffers.
Using
AI
Has
Its
Consequences:
Life
in
prison
may
be
a
little
much!
Former
Skadden
Fellows
Share
Their
Thoughts
On
The
Program
Changes:
They
don’t
seem
too
happy.
Looking
For
The
Best
Practice
Areas
And
Regions?:
Check
out
Vault’s
2026
ranking!
