Category: News Feeds

Economic losses were estimated at more than $1 billion across the affected countries – Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe and Madagascar. However, the devastating impacts of such disasters – especially for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and small states in Africa – tend to be deeper and more far-reaching than initial reports would indicate.

The consensus among scientists is that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, cyclones and landslides, are now occurring with increased frequency and greater intensity. There are long term consequences such as desertification, erosion of arable land, and changes in ecological balance, which can prove difficult to reverse. As a result of climate change, there is a heightened risk that while vulnerable Commonwealth states are recovering from one natural disaster, another will strike.

For instance, Mozambique was still reeling from the impact of Cyclone Idai in March when Cyclone Kenneth – the strongest in the country’s history – bore down barely six weeks later. In fact, there have been no fewer than 13 emergency events in Mozambique since 2015 (mirrored by 12 in neighbouring Malawi). Indeed, 109 disasters recorded in the country over the past 50 years have incurred more than $1.15 billion in economic damage.

Statistics such as these demonstrate the vital importance for all our member countries of planning long term strategies to manage disaster risks and of building resilience through disaster preparedness, as was acknowledged by Commonwealth Heads of Government when they met in 2018.

They affirmed their commitment to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – the international agreement for mobilising governments, private sector and other stakeholders to reduce risks and build resilience. By doing so, our leaders acknowledged that rather than merely responding after disaster strikes, it is more cost-effective and prudent to invest beforehand in prevention, protection and preparation.

Yet disaster risk reduction remains a relatively low priority for international development finance. Apart from the costs of post-disaster reconstruction and response, of every $100 spent on international aid in the past two decades, only 40 cents have been spent on pre-disaster risk management.

Moreover, the field of disaster risk finance is complex and evolving, making it even harder for small states and LDCs to tap into the limited funding available. Information is fragmented, and donors and lenders often have widely varying procedures and requirements that need to be navigated in order to unlock finance.

Bringing clarity to disaster risk finance

To tackle these impediments, and to help create a more streamlined and integrated approach to accessing funds, the Commonwealth will soon be launching a new disaster risk finance portal. This web-based platform, designed to make it easier for capacity-constrained governments to gain access to the funding they so urgently need, will be ready for preview when our annual Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting, convenes in Washington DC this October with Cyprus in the chair.

As well as helping governments to find what disaster finance instruments are available, the portal will assist them with identifying those that are most suited to their particular needs and circumstances. A one-stop-shop, with information collated from a range of sources and clearly presented, will save governments time and effort, and help them to make more informed decisions on disaster preparedness and response.

The theme for our Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting – Avoiding Debt Crises – also strikes a chord, as disasters push many countries into taking on emergency loans to rebuild and recover. For most low and middle-income countries, such public debt easily becomes unsustainable, and makes them vulnerable to the additional high risk of debt distress.

The Commonwealth has an impressive record of successful advocacy to bring to international attention the difficulties associated with managing debt issues – and of offering practical solutions. Last month, we launched Commonwealth Meridian, our state-of-the-art sovereign debt management software. It builds on the successes of the Commonwealth Debt Recording and Management System (CS-DRMS) which over recent years has been used by more than 100 agencies – including the finance ministries, treasuries and central banks of 60 countries – to manage more than $2.5 trillion of public debt.

This complements the work of the Commonwealth Finance Access Hub set up in 2016 to help small and vulnerable states make successful funding applications for projects that will help them adapt to climate change and mitigate its impact. To date, the hub has helped countries gain access to $25.3 million, with a further $367.4 million in the pipeline. It does so by embedding long term specialists within ministries to provide expert advice and to build local capacity for the longer term.

Tools such as these, together with many other projects and programmes and advocacy strategies, are components in a suite of support offered by the Commonwealth collectively so that all our members are better equipped and ready to cope with disasters, including those related to climate change.

Our combined Commonwealth purpose is to reduce the number of people being pushed into poverty and food insecurity by recurring natural disasters, and whose opportunities to share the benefits of inclusive and sustainable progress are impaired when economic growth falters. Where the planning and wherewithal to assist people with recovery from trauma and to rebuild their lives is lacking, community cohesion and nation-building can also be severely compromised and set back. Without sustained action to mitigate risks and build resilience, hopes of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 are slender.

By mobilising multilateral action, particularly in support of those who are marginalised or more vulnerable, with the stronger working alongside the less secure, we are able to build defences against disaster which may be needed by any of us at any time. So the Commonwealth shines as a beacon of hope for a more harmonious world, and for cooperation to sustain the health and well-being of our planet.

Post published in: Featured

With two nights of the most recent Democratic debates this week, elections and campaigns are definitely the topic on everyone’s mind (or maybe that’s just my D.C., inside the beltway bubble). All of the recent attention to elections reminded me that copyright issues in political campaigns frequently arise. For example, a candidate might want to use a clip of an opponent in a campaign ad to criticize his or her opponent. Campaign rallies, as well as TV and radio ads, frequently use copyrighted music. Print ads might use copyrighted logos or images.

Here are five examples of copyright and campaign stories from recent years.

Mitt Romney Ad Pulled from YouTube – During the 2012 elections, Mitt Romney’s campaign was unhappy with President Barack Obama’s campaign ad that used Romney’s singing of “America the Beautiful.” Romney, unfortunately, appears to be a bit tone deaf and the political attack ad exploits his lack of singing talents. In retaliation, Romney’s campaign created its own attack ad of President Obama singing “Let’s Stay Together” by Al Green. BMG Rights Management, which owns the rights to “Let’s Stay Together,” had Romney’s ad pulled from YouTube due to copyright infringement. The video was restored on the YouTube platform several days later, perhaps because of the outcry that Romney’s use was fair use.

Copyright Litigation Over “Hope” Poster of Obama – The iconic poster of Obama in the 2008 election, tinted with red and blue, with the word “HOPE” emblazoned on the bottom was the subject of copyright litigation between Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press. Fairey based his graphic poster on a photo that had been taking by the Associated Press at a 2006 event and argued that his use was a transformative fair use. The Associated Press disagreed, claiming that Fairey infringed copyright. Ultimately, the case settled in 2011. Of course, in true transformative fashion, that “Hope” poster has been replicated, transformed, and changed dozens of times. Just do a Google image search for “Obama hope poster” and see all the variations — with and without Obama — that have been created.

Obama’s “Bad News” Ad Taken Down – In 2008, the Obama campaign created a video that used archival footage of Tom Brokaw and Keith Olbermann to create a fake newscast and deliver the “bad news” that his opponent, Senator John McCain, had been elected president. NBC, displeased with the ad, asserted copyright infringement and issued a takedown notice. YouTube removed the video, which the Obama campaign had hoped would help “get out the vote.” Indeed, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown process has been frequently criticized because of the tendency to take material down immediately, which can have serious consequences for elections.

Fox News Sends Cease-and-Desist to McCain Campaign for Use of 19-Second Debate Clip – In the run up to the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain used 19 seconds of a 90-minute debate sponsored by Fox News in a campaign ad. While the McCain campaign asserted that the use was a fair use, Fox argued that the commercial nature precluded fair use. The video ended up going viral online, though its initial intended use was for television spots. Subsequently, Fox News sent cease-and-desist letters to all candidates using footage from the network.

R.E.M. Objects to Use of Music in Trump Campaign – Musical artists objecting to the use of their songs in campaign rallies and ads is nothing new and any number of examples could have occupied this spot. Aerosmith and Neil Young both objected to use by the Trump campaign in 2016, issuing cease-and-desist letters. Tom Petty, Survivor, Twisted Sister, Silversun Pickups, and Dropkick Murphys are just a few examples of artists who objected to 2012 campaigns using their music. R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe’s statement is the one that stands out for me, however, due to the colorful and pointed language: “Go fuck yourselves, the lot of you — you sad, attention-grabbing, power-hungry little men. Do not use our music or my voice for your moronic charade of a campaign.” Typically, the artists are not objecting to the use of their music generally, but object to being associated with a particular candidate or campaign — at times they turn to copyright to try and prevent the use of their songs. Of course, in many cases, their cease-and-desist letters simply raise publicity and let the general public know that the particular band or artist does not want to be associated with the candidate. Typically, campaigns using various venues for their rallies and events, such as arenas or convention centers, pick songs that are licensed by the venue covering various rights organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. However, in some cases, the campaigns have to secure the licenses themselves because the licensing agreements with the venues may exclude use for campaign events.

Krista L. Cox is a policy attorney who has spent her career working for non-profit organizations and associations. She has expertise in copyright, patent, and intellectual property enforcement law, as well as international trade. She currently works for a non-profit member association advocating for balanced copyright. You can reach her at kristay@gmail.com.

Today is the final day of the July 2018 administration of the bar exam, and come 5 p.m., there will be nothing left for would-be lawyers to do but await their pass/fail fates. Here are some things to distract recent test-takers while they play the months-long waiting game and make other members of the legal profession chuckle as they take in the schadenfreude: a collection of this summer’s bar exam horror stories.

As Above the Law readers know all too well, there are numerous ways the biggest exam of law school graduates’ lives can get screwed up. Take, for example, what happened during the MBE at testing centers in Minnesota and D.C. earlier this week:

• Minnesota bar examinee here: in one of the exam rooms we had some sort of news/talk radio audio piped in through the commercial speakers (it’s held at an event center) off-and-on for several minutes during the exam. I imagine several enraged people have already contacted you with tips about this.

• The MN bar had sports talk radio coming over the PA for the first 10-15 minutes of the MBE this morning. Great trying to take the most important exam of my life with that distraction.

• In my afternoon session in D.C., the proctor gave my room a 30 minute warning when we had 45 minutes, then proceeded to call time 15 minutes early. When that happened, I, as well as several other examinees, told the proctor we believed that was incorrect. She did not believe us initially, and had to consult with the other proctor in the hallway. In the meantime, we were instructed to put pencils down. When the proctor finally realized her mistake, several minutes had elapsed, and no examinees were given back that missed time. And that’s not even the full of it! Proctors allowed examinees to leave in the last 30 minutes, chatted with each other, and walked in and out of the room pretty much nonstop.

That must have been incredibly annoying, but at least you know your Scantron sheets were in the right hands when they were collected after the exam. What if you uploaded your essays to ExamSoft and they just disappeared without a trace into the wilds of the internet? That’s what seems to have happened to this test-taker in California:

Twice they tell you at the exam that if you don’t “upload” your answers by August 1, you will lose ten points on each essay you did not upload. If they don’t get it in two weeks, you get zero on the test. So, on Tuesday night I uploaded my bar exam answers. The software company (ExamSoft) who receives it sends you an email that says, “For additional confirmation of your upload, visit your personal account page. To do so, log in to your institution’s portal and select ‘History.’” So I get on my personal California Bar web page and there is (a) No “History” I can select, and (b) No notice that they ever received my bar exam answers. So, I called the California Bar and the lady had no idea what I was talking about. She says they do not ever acknowledge whether they receive an exam and it goes directly to the people who grade you. So, now I get to lose sleep about this until November.

That’s certainly going to be an excruciating wait, but perhaps what was even more excruciating for one test-taker was the thought that he wouldn’t even be able to make it to the exam thanks to a series of canceled flights. Check out this disastrous story:

The day (Monday) started out pretty normal. I got to the Champaign, IL airport, which is very small, for my connecting flight to Chicago about an hour before the flight was set to take off. A few delays later and rescheduling to a later connection to that was to arrive in Buffalo around 5 pm, my flight to Chicago was cancelled. Well crap… so I quickly got on the phone with the firm I’m starting at in the fall to ask if they would reimburse a cab to Chicago to catch my connection. They said of course, so I jumped in a cab and got some studying done. About an hour from O’Hare I heard a large bang… the cab had a flat tire.

So now I’m stuck on the side of the highway trying to get an Uber. Uber isn’t too crazy about side of the highway pick-ups, so after about 30 minutes standing in the rain, my Uber was finally able to find me. An hour later I’m standing in the security line at O’Hare, thankfully in time to make my connection. My phone buzzes. Flight to Buffalo canceled.

I call the airline to find a way to Buffalo. They ask if I want a flight leaving around 9 p.m., getting in at 11:30. After asking if I can get on another airline, this wonderful airline (bless their heart) says because my delay was not over 24 hours they cannot put me on another airline. Sooo I take the flight and proceed to ask a gate agent, “No b.s., will this flight make it to Buffalo so I can take the bar in the morning?” She looks at the radar, looks at me… “Errr if I were you, I would go get a rental car.”

I’m faced with a split second decision, get a car now to get there ASAP and drive or risk it with the flight. Thankfully, my wonderful girlfriend was about 45 minutes from O’Hare and offered to drive me and I picked the rental car for the peace of mind. She drove me all night and I got about two hours of sleep in the car and I arrived in Buffalo around 4 a.m., just in time to sleep a little before my 7 a.m. alarm. My girlfriend (the real MVP) drove straight to the airport for her 5 a.m. flight back to Illinois to meet the movers before our move to Brooklyn.

The adrenaline kept me going and surviving on day one. Day two felt like a breeze after that.

Holy crap, after all of that insanity, we sincerely hope this guy passes the test!

Last, but certainly not least, we’ve got a happy little story from Arizona, where someone’s spouse surprised her after the exam with a mariachi band:

Congratulations to everyone who finished the July 2019 administration of the bar exam. We’ll keep our fingers crossed for you!

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

President Trump promised during his 2016 presidential campaign that his administration would build a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border but, until recently, Democrats have successfully blocked funding for the project meant to thwart illegal immigrants from entering the country unchecked.

Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador in Zimbabwe approved a different kind of border wall to be built in the southern Africa nation with U.S.’ funding. The U.S. Ambassadors’ Fund for Cultural Preservation granted $475,000 to the Great Zimbabwe Museum to make repairs to the border wall of an 11th century stone fortress that surrounds the ruins of an ancient city.

“All this is funded under the fund from the U.S. ambassador,” Lovemore Nyandima, a regional director for the Great Zimbabwe Museum told Bloomberg.

Great Zimbabwe was the capital city of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe that reigned over the ancestors of the modern-day Shona ethnic group, Bloomberg reported. The wall surrounding the city today is overrun with an invasive weed from the West Indies known as lantana camara.

The grant will fund efforts to prevent the weed from growing through the wall, destroying the stones. A system will be installed in late August or September to help detect shifts in the ancient stones, Nyandima told Bloomberg.

Back in the U.S., the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration last Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction. The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Post published in: Featured

Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe represents a safe Republican district where he routinely cruises to victory with margins approaching 50 percent. This might explain how he got away with telling a pile of whoppers about his time in the U.S. Attorney’s Office — with no real opponent, there was no one to check. But politics ain’t beanbag, and now that Trump has nominated Ratcliffe to replace Dan Coates as the Director of National Intelligence, the media is starting to dig.

Even before the revelations about Ratcliffe’s history of exaggerations, he was already facing criticism for his thin national security résumé.

Previous DNIs had significant military, foreign relations, and intelligence experience under their belts. But Trump, who describes the intelligence agencies as having “run amok,” clearly values Ratcliffe’s full-throated attacks on the very intelligence apparatus he’s nominated to supervise.

On March 24, Ratcliffe told Fox’s Maria Bartiromo, “Think about that, a dossier funded by the Democrats, peddled through the Obama intelligence community, falsely verified by the Obama Justice Department, then sold to the American people by those very same elected Democrats and willing folks in the media,” perpetuating the lie that Christopher Steele’s dossier was the basis for the entire Russia investigation, and thus the Mueller report is somehow fruit of the poison tree.

So, aside from his time as mayor of the Texas town of Heath, population 7,000, what national security experience does Ratcliffe bring to the table? Well, in 2004, President Bush appointed him Chief of Anti-Terrorism and National Security for the Eastern District of Texas. Which sounds highly impressive, and, indeed, his House website boasts that the Congressman “put terrorists in prison.” But as the New York Times points out, the only terrorism prosecution during Ratcliffe’s tenure appears to have been an Iraq-war veteran with PTSD charged with building a pipe bomb.

Ratcliffe has faced repeated criticism for overstating his role in the prosecution of a domestic group accused of funding Hamas bombers. A 2015 press release posted on his House website says, “When serving by special appointment in U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, he convicted individuals who were funneling money to Hamas behind the front of a charitable organization.” Except the Holy Land Foundation prosecution took place in the Northern District of Texas, and Ratcliffe’s sole contribution appears to have been a retrospective examination of what went wrong with the first disastrous prosecution which resulted in an embarrassing mistrial. (The defendants were later convicted on retrial.) So, no, the Congressman did not “convict” anyone in this case.

Finally, Ratcliffe’s official bio claims that he “arrested 300 illegal aliens in a single day.” No doubt this is intended to evoke images of a steely-eyed lawman slapping the cuffs on criminal after criminal with his own giant hands. But Ratcliffe would have had to be able to bend the space time continuum to be present for simultaneous raids on Pilgrim’s Pride poultry plants in Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia. The number of people he arrested was actually … ZERO. But we’re sure the hatred for undocumented immigrants is real.

In normal times, these false claims might sink a nominee. But these are not normal times. The Times reports that Senate Intelligence Chair Richard Burr privately counseled the White House against nominating someone who has  already politicized the process by accusing the intelligence community of “spying” on Trump’s campaign. And Ratcliffe’s thin CV isn’t helping, either. But now that the nomination is official, Burr has changed his tune and pledged to support Trump’s guy. So, barring any major scandal breaking, it’s a safe bet Ratcliffe can scrounge up 50 votes.

No doubt Susan Collins will express concern, John Kennedy will play the maverick for a hot second, Martha McSally will truly wrestle with her decision, Mitt Romney will give it serious consideration, and then they’ll all vote “yes.” Third verse, same as the first.

Trump’s Pick for Top Intelligence Post Overstated Parts of His Biography [New York Times]
Trump’s Pick for Intelligence Director Misrepresented Role in Anti-Terror Case [ABC News]
Ratcliffe Questioned Intelligence Community’s Role in Russia Investigation [CNN]
Trump’s Nominee to Lead America’s Intelligence Agencies Has an Unusually Thin Résumé [Washington Post]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

* An argument for ditching the billable hour for the sake of mental health. [Law.com]

* Eighth Circuit okays suppressing Native American votes in North Dakota. [Courthouse News Service]

* Masturbating on the D.C. Metro is legal? That actually doesn’t shock me. [Washington Examiner]

* Charlotte is probably America’s hottest legal market right now, which is a sentence no one expected ten years ago. [American Lawyer]

* Facebook beat back case claiming that the platform aided in Hamas attacks. Expect a lot of nonsensical blathering about Section 230 in Congress today. [Law360]

* California passes major legislation to protect sex workers. The bill’s sponsor is named Wiener which shouldn’t make me laugh as much as it is. [Rolling Stone]

* A no deal Brexit is a disaster for young lawyers. [Legal Cheek]

Introduction

The Minister of Environment, Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Hon Prisca Mupfumira, has been arrested on serious charges involving corruption and abuse of office.  When she appeared in court after being arrested her lawyer applied for bail but the Prosecutor-General issued a certificate forbidding the grant of bail for 21 days, so the magistrate accordingly refused it and remanded her in custody for 21 days.

In this Court Watch we shall not comment on whether Hon Mupfumira is guilty of the crimes alleged against her ‒ that will be for a court to decide in due course.  Nor shall we go into the question whether she should be released on bail – that should be a consideration for a court.

What this bulletin will do is to question the constitutionality of a law which gives the Prosecutor-General power to forbid the grant of bail to accused persons.

First though we should explain briefly what it means to be released on bail pending trial.

What is bail pending trial?

Anyone who is arrested must be brought before a court within 48 hours, but their trial can seldom take place so soon, so they have to be remanded ‒ that is to say, ordered to come back to court at a later date.  The court has to decide whether in the interim the person must be kept in custody or whether they can be released on bail, i.e. set free subject to conditions.  These conditions usually require the payment of a sum of money which will be forfeited if the person fails to obey the order to come back to court.

The Constitutional Right to Bail

The granting of bail is a very important part of our criminal procedure because it allows people who have been arrested to remain at liberty while waiting for their trials to begin.  It must be remembered that these people are presumed to be innocent until they have been found guilty by a court, and until then they should not suffer the indignity and hardship of detention in prison unless there are compelling reasons justifying their detention.  So important is the right to liberty that section 50(1)(d) the Constitution enshrines the right of arrested persons to bail in those very words:

“Any person who is arrested—

       ………….

(d)  must be released unconditionally or on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons justifying their continued detention”.

Section 32(3b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act

In the light of section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution, how could Hon Mupfumira be denied bail just at the order of the Prosecutor-General?  The answer lies in section 32(3b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [which we shall call the CP&E Act].

In summary section 32(3b) states that where a person is brought before a judge or magistrate for remand after being arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed a serious economic crime listed in the Ninth Schedule to the CP&E Act [the crimes for which Hon Mupfumira was arrested are in the list] and the Prosecutor-General issues a certificate stating:

• that the crime involves significant prejudice to the national interest,
• that it is necessary to detain the person for up to 21 days in order to investigate the crime properly, and
• that the police officer who arrested the person was of or above the rank of assistant inspector,

Then, if the judge or magistrate is satisfied there is a reasonable suspicion that the person committed the offence, the judge or magistrate must order the person’s detention for 21 days or for any shorter period specified by the Prosecutor-General.

Is Section 32(3b) Constitutional?

Section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution says that arrested people must be released unless there are compelling reasons justifying their continued detention.  The effect of section 32(3b) of the CP&E Act, in contrast, is that arrested people must be detained if the Prosecutor-General issues a certificate under the section.  Put like that the inconsistency between section 32(3b) and the Constitution is obvious.

If it is necessary to give further reasons why section 32(3b) is unconstitutional, here they are:

• In several cases judges of the High Court have said that the Constitution places an obligation on the prosecution to establish compelling reasons why an accused person should be denied bail.  What are compelling reasons?  Over many years courts have held that legitimate grounds for refusing bail are:

• if the accused person is likely to abscond, or
• interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct police investigations, or
• if they are likely to commit further crimes.

Any one of these grounds, if clearly established by the prosecution, could constitute a compelling reason for refusing bail.

• Under section 32(3b) of the CP&E Act, on the other hand, the Prosecutor-General need simply state that the crime with which the accused person is charged is a serious one involving significant prejudice to the national interest.  He does not have to establish, or even allege, that the accused will abscond, or interfere with witnesses, or commit further crimes.  The mere fact that a person is charged with a serious crime does not necessarily establish any of those factors and does not necessarily constitute a “compelling reason” for denying them bail.
• Section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution permits bail to be refused if “there are compelling reasons” for the refusal;  the existence of those reasons must be objectively established to the satisfaction of the court.  Under section 32(3b), in contrast, all the Prosecutor-General need do is allege that the accused person’s crimes involve significant national prejudice;  he does not have to prove or establish the prejudice.
• When presented with a certificate under section 32(3b) containing the necessary allegations, a court must refuse to grant the accused person bail.  It has no discretion in the matter.  The Prosecutor-General, therefore, has deprived the court of its essential judicial function vested in courts by section 162 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

Clearly section 32(3b) of the CP&E Act is inconsistent with section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution and is therefore void.

Laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution are void (i.e. invalid) by virtue of section 2 of the Constitution, and they are void even if the Constitutional Court has not declared them to be such ‒ this point was made by the Court in Veritas’ child marriage case [Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice & Others CCZ 12/2015 ‒ Link]

This conclusion will not be of much comfort or use to Hon Mupfumira.  Although magistrates have power under sections 85 and 175 of the Constitution to declare laws to be unconstitutional, they would be most reluctant to use that power when it came to declaring an Act of Parliament to be void.

Instead, Hon Mupfumira’s lawyers will have to apply to the High Court or even the Constitutional Court for the necessary order, and it is most unlikely that the court will give judgment in their application before her 21-day detention comes to an end.

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

Post published in: Featured

The army, which was illegally deployed, used live ammunition to disperse protests in the capital Harare, after delays in the release of the presidential election results by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.

“The tragedy of the post-election shootings is compounded by the fact that no one in the army suspected to be responsible for the bloodshed has been held to account for these brutal killings. This is despite the fact that the alleged perpetrators have been identified through the media and social media videos and pictures,” said Muleya Mwananyanda, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Southern Africa.

“If the Zimbabwean government wants to demonstrate that it is committed to human rights, it needs to ensure that the wheels of justice start turning faster than they have done over the past year.”

After the shooting on 1 August 2018, the Zimbabwe Republic Police confirmed that three people were killed when soldiers fired at demonstrators as they ran away. The number was later confirmed to be six. Some of the injured and dead were shot from the back.

The army also ordered journalists covering the protests to switch off their video recording equipment and cameras.

If there is violence in the context of a protest and the use of force is unavoidable to mitigate against the threat posed by participants or bystanders, law enforcement officials must use only minimum force necessary to contain the situation and must comply with the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

“Authorities must institute thorough, effective and impartial investigations into the killings of protesters, some of whom were killed while fleeing, with those found to have acted unlawfully brought to justice through fair trials,” said Muleya Mwananyanda.

“Zimbabwean authorities should under no circumstances allow further impunity and cover-ups for the killings. If Zimbabwe is to become a human rights respecting society, no one, including the army, should be untouchable for violating human rights.”

Post published in: Featured