Speaking to ZiFM Stereo News, Passenger Association of Zimbabwe (PAZ) president Tafadzwa Goliati said the situation has reached alarming levels, describing it as an “invasion” of major termini, which are now overcrowded, poorly managed, and increasingly hazardous.
Goliati added that conditions have worsened sharply, with open defecation becoming common and some people now living and sleeping in and around the terminals. He said:
“Street adults and children are now using bus termini as living spaces. They sleep anywhere, and sanitation conditions are worsening.
“There is a strong smell of urine, and people no longer feel safe, especially at night.”
Many passengers now avoid bus terminals after dark because of crime, poor lighting, and suspected criminals targeting travellers in the crowded areas.
We
use
cookies
on
our
website
to
give
you
the
most
relevant
experience
by
remembering
your
preferences
and
repeat
visits.
By
clicking
“Accept
All”,
you
consent
to
the
use
of
ALL
the
cookies.
However,
you
may
visit
“Cookie
Settings”
to
provide
a
controlled
consent.
Judge
Strikes
Down
Pentagon’s
Free
Press
Squashing
Policy:
The
American
public
will
be
better
off
for
it!
AI
Is
Being
Trained
On
Law:
But
who
is
training
the
lawyers?
Lateraling
good
talent
can
only
work
for
so
long.
Morgan
Lewis
Picks
Their
Next
Leader:
Congratulations
to
David
McManus
on
the
new
role!
The
Verdict
Is
In:
Jury
finds
Elon
Musk
defrauded
Twitter
shareholders
in
his
2022
purchase
of
the
bird
app.
There
is
a
familiar
anxiety
running
through
legal
education
and
law
firms
alike.
If
AI
can
analyze
issues,
draft
language,
and
flag
risks,
what
happens
to
legal
judgment?
Is
it
being
replaced,
diminished,
or
quietly
outsourced?
The
more
uncomfortable
answer
is
different.
AI
is
not
replacing
legal
judgment.
It
is
exposing
how
little
of
it
we
explicitly
teach.
This
became
clear
during
a
series
of
empirical
classroom
pilots
run
through
Product
Law
Hub
using
an
AI-based
legal
coach
called
Frankie.
The
pilots
were
conducted
in
a
product
counseling
course
and
designed
to
observe
how
students
develop
judgment-based
legal
skills
when
working
alongside
AI.
The
findings
draw
on
quantitative
engagement
data
and
qualitative
interviews
conducted
throughout
the
course.
What
emerged
was
not
a
story
about
automation.
It
was
a
story
about
instruction.
We
Talk
About
Judgment,
But
We
Rarely
Teach
It
Legal
education
and
law
firm
training
both
emphasize
judgment
as
a
defining
professional
skill.
We
expect
lawyers
to
know
how
to
weigh
risks,
frame
advice,
and
make
tradeoffs
under
uncertainty.
Yet
much
of
legal
training
focuses
on
correctness.
Did
you
spot
the
issue?
Did
you
cite
the
right
authority?
Did
you
reach
a
defensible
conclusion?
Judgment
is
assumed
to
emerge
along
the
way.
In
the
classroom
pilot,
that
assumption
was
tested
directly.
Students
were
given
realistic
scenarios
and
asked
to
work
through
them
with
AI
support.
The
difference
in
outcomes
turned
not
on
whether
the
AI
provided
the
right
answer,
but
on
how
it
explained
the
answer.
‘Why
This
Matters’
Changed
Everything
The
strongest
learning
gains
occurred
when
the
AI
explained
why
an
answer
mattered
in
context,
not
simply
whether
it
was
correct.
When
feedback
connected
legal
analysis
to
business
impact,
stakeholder
priorities,
or
downstream
consequences,
students
retained
more
and
engaged
more
deeply.
Quantitative
data
showed
longer
session
times
and
higher
completion
rates
when
explanations
tied
legal
issues
to
product
decisions.
Interviews
confirmed
that
students
felt
more
confident
explaining
their
reasoning,
not
just
reaching
conclusions.
By
contrast,
when
feedback
stopped
at
correctness,
learning
stalled.
Students
moved
on
quickly,
but
they
struggled
to
articulate
why
an
issue
mattered
or
how
it
should
be
framed
for
a
non-legal
audience.
This
distinction
is
easy
to
overlook
because
correctness
is
measurable.
Judgment
is
not.
AI
made
that
gap
visible.
Framing
Is
Learned,
Not
Inferred
One
of
the
most
consistent
improvements
observed
during
the
pilot
was
in
framing.
Students
became
better
at
explaining
tradeoffs,
prioritizing
risks,
and
tailoring
advice
to
context
when
the
AI
modeled
that
behavior
explicitly.
This
did
not
happen
because
the
AI
was
smarter
than
the
students.
It
happened
because
it
made
the
reasoning
process
legible.
It
showed
how
legal
considerations
connect
to
product
timelines,
customer
impact,
and
business
strategy.
In
practice,
this
is
what
senior
lawyers
do
instinctively.
They
do
not
recite
doctrine.
They
translate
it.
Yet
that
translation
step
is
rarely
taught
systematically.
AI
forced
it
into
the
open.
The
Myth
That
Judgment
Cannot
Be
Taught
There
is
a
persistent
belief
in
legal
culture
that
judgment
is
something
you
absorb
through
experience,
not
something
that
can
be
taught
directly.
Experience
certainly
matters.
But
the
pilot
suggests
that
judgment
can
be
accelerated
when
it
is
made
explicit.
Students
improved
fastest
when
the
AI
articulated
the
reasoning
path,
not
just
the
destination.
They
learned
how
to
think
about
tradeoffs,
not
just
how
to
reach
outcomes.
That
learning
transferred
across
scenarios.
This
should
matter
to
firms
struggling
with
training.
If
judgment
were
truly
untouchable,
AI
would
have
little
to
contribute.
Instead,
the
data
suggests
that
AI
can
support
judgment
development
when
it
is
designed
to
surface
reasoning
rather
than
obscure
it.
Education
And
Practice
Are
Closer
Than
We
Admit
One
of
the
more
interesting
aspects
of
the
pilot
was
how
closely
classroom
dynamics
mirrored
practice.
The
same
behaviors
that
supported
learning
also
supported
credibility.
Systems
that
explained
context
built
trust.
Systems
that
collapsed
nuance
undermined
it.
This
alignment
matters
because
it
challenges
the
idea
that
education
and
practice
require
fundamentally
different
tools.
They
require
the
same
thing:
support
for
reasoning,
not
shortcuts
around
it.
Law
schools
and
firms
often
talk
past
each
other
about
preparedness.
The
pilot
suggests
a
shared
opportunity.
Both
environments
struggle
to
teach
judgment
explicitly.
AI
did
not
create
that
gap.
It
revealed
it.
What
AI
Makes
Impossible
To
Ignore
Before
AI,
gaps
in
judgment
training
were
easier
to
hide.
Senior
lawyers
compensated.
Juniors
learned
slowly.
Feedback
was
uneven.
AI
interactions,
by
contrast,
are
immediate
and
observable.
When
a
system
explains
why
something
matters,
learning
accelerates.
When
it
does
not,
the
absence
is
obvious.
That
visibility
is
uncomfortable,
but
valuable.
The
Product
Law
Hub
pilot
did
not
show
that
AI
can
replace
judgment.
It
showed
that
we
have
been
relying
on
implicit
learning
for
too
long.
AI
forces
us
to
decide
whether
we
are
willing
to
teach
what
we
claim
to
value.
The
Real
Lesson
For
The
Profession
The
real
lesson
from
these
findings
is
not
about
technology.
It
is
about
intention.
If
we
want
lawyers
who
can
exercise
judgment,
we
have
to
teach
judgment.
That
means
explaining
tradeoffs,
modeling
reasoning,
and
connecting
legal
analysis
to
real-world
consequences.
AI
can
help
with
that,
but
only
if
we
stop
using
it
as
an
answer
machine.
AI
did
not
expose
a
weakness
in
lawyers.
It
exposed
a
weakness
in
how
we
train
them.
That
is
a
problem
worth
solving,
with
or
without
technology.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.
A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.
She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.
The
land
occupations
in
2000
were
highly
varied,
but
many
women
joined
them.
These
were
either
independent
women,
including
young,
single
women,
divorcees
and
widows,
or
women
joining
the
occupations
as
their
husbands
were
at
work
and
so
not
available.
Within
the
‘base
camps’
women
were
allocated
separate
areas
to
camp
and
were
heavily
involved
in
the
social
reproductive
tasks
of
sustaining
the
occupations:
cooking,
collecting
water
and
looking
after
infant
children
and
babies
who
had
come
with
them.
Mai
M
from
Masvingo
district
explained:
I
came
here
during
the
fast-track
land
reform.
I
came
here
with
both
men
and
women;
the
gender
split
was
50:50.
We
arrived
and
claimed
the
farm
from
the
white
farmer…
We
came
here
with
[a
group
of
women].
Some
people
were
married,
while
others
were
single
women
who
had
already
separated
from
their
husbands.
MM
from
Mvurwi
explained
how,
as
a
war
veteran,
she
was
at
the
forefront
of
the
land
occupations,
joining
independently
and
later
bringing
her
husband
and
family:
I
was
at
the
forefront
of
the
fast-track
land
reform;
we
are
the
reason
people
ended
up
with
all
these
farms.
I
did
not
consult
my
husband
about
joining
the
fast-track
land
reform
campaign
because
it
was
not
something
to
discuss
at
home.
We
made
this
decision
in
meetings
at
the
war
veterans’
association.
My
husband
had
no
right
to
stop
me
from
joining
the
cause
because
that
was
my
job.
Mai
N
from
Gutu
district
recounted
her
story.
The
challenges
of
juggling
childcare
with
establishing
new
homes
and
farms
were
highlighted,
along
with
the
dangers
faced
by
single
women
during
the
occupations:
We
came
here
for
fast-track
land
reform
as
women;
my
husband
was
at
work.
I
joined
the
war
at
the
end,
but
I
am
not
really
a
war
vet…
There
were
eight
women
who
came
here,
and
then
we
were
later
joined
by
four
men.
We
initially
lived
together
as
a
group
of
eight
in
the
compound
at
Bath
Farm,
and
later
divided,
with
each
person
building
their
own
homestead.
The
sleeping
arrangements
were
a
bit
challenging.
My
husband
built
me
a
big
rondavel,
and
everyone
slept
there.
When
it
was
time
to
sleep,
everyone
came
to
sleep
at
my
house
because
my
husband
had
installed
a
very
strong
door.
We
also
had
a
language
we
used
as
a
signal
for
communication
in
case
an
enemy
attacked
us,
so
if
the
slogan
was
not
used,
we
would
not
leave
the
house
or
answer.
We
stayed
together
from
May
to
August
under
the
base
commander.
We
then
separated
when
I
got
my
land
here,
and
the
other
four
women
I
was
with
got
land
in
Salem,
the
other
three
got
their
land
in
Bath
farm…
I
left
there
because
there
were
three
married
brothers,
including
my
husband
in
one
farm,
with
a
piece
of
land
for
their
mother.
So,
the
farmland
was
inadequate,
and
we
would
end
up
buying
food
because
the
produce
wasn’t
enough.
When
we
came
here
for
land
reform,
I
brought
the
youngest
child,
and
the
other
two
initially
remained
in
Gutu.
The
other
two
came
when
they
were
a
little
older;
the
oldest
child
was
in
Form
1,
and
the
other
daughter
in
Form
2.
I
did
not
have
help
at
the
beginning;
I
used
to
juggle
farming
and
looking
after
the
children.
It
was
my
kids
and
I
doing
all
the
work.
That
is
how
we
managed
things,
maybe
because
we
were
eager
to
own
the
land.
Mrs
C
from
Masvingo
district
explained
that
the
early
days
of
the
occupations
were
filled
with
uncertainty.
The
invaders
who
came
to
the
farms
on
the
bus
were
mocked,
and
people
questioned
whether
building
good
houses
made
sense
if
the
land
reform
got
reversed:
We
were
led
by
Comrade
B;
he
would
come
by
to
check
that
everyone
was
doing
well.
There
was
unity
and
teamwork
during
that
time,
but
now
everything
is
individualistic…..
[my
husband]
was
the
one
who
started
building
nice
houses,
but
people
were
concerned
that
the
allocated
land
might
be
taken
back,
so
what
was
the
use
in
investing
in
building.
Sometimes
we
would
use
the
same
bus
going
to
Masvingise,
and
people
would
make
fun
of
us
when
we
were
dropped
off
in
the
bush.
They
thought
we
were
unwise
to
pursue
the
farms.
BN
from
Matobo
district
explained
how
she
joined
the
land
occupations
with
small
children:
I
came
here
when
the
children
were
still
young;
the
last
born
was
three
months
old.
I
survived
through
farming,
selling
produce
and
some
of
it
to
GMB
to
feed
my
children.
If
I
failed
to
harvest
much,
I
would
go
work
in
other
households,
building
mud
houses.
We
heard
there
were
land
invasions,
and
I
decided
that
life
in
the
rural
areas
was
a
struggle,
so
I
decided
to
come
here
with
others.
The
government
then
came
later
and
pegged
the
land
for
us.
The
land
invasions
occurred,
but
they
were
not
violent.
We
spoke
to
white
people
who
were
here,
and
they
gave
us
one
farm
each,
since
most
had
two.
We
learned
about
the
land
invasions
from
the
radio;
they
were
saying
that
those
in
Matobo
should
go
to
a
specific
area
and
occupy
it,
and
they
will
take
one
from
each
of
the
white
people
with
two
farms.
I
came
here
alone,
with
my
children
and
built
a
small
hut
for
myself.
FS
from
the
Masvingo
district
equally
recounted
how
she
came
here
alone.
This
was
a
period
of
hard
work
and
much
hardship.
Living
alone
was
terrifying,
she
explained:
My
husband
became
part
of
fast-track
land
reform
because
they
did
not
have
enough
land
at
his
village
to
farm.
The
village
was
in
the
mountains;
no
cars
or
even
a
wheelbarrow
could
reach
it.
When
we
arrived,
some
of
the
children
stayed
behind,
while
I
came
with
the
twins.
Having
young
children
and
working
at
the
farm,
fetching
water,
and
all
that
was
a
challenge.
We
used
to
constantly
move
between
here
and
Masvingo;
this
place
does
not
need
anyone
with
a
small
child.
It’s
easier
to
do
the
work
on
your
own.
We
used
to
ask
for
help
to
till
the
land
from
those
that
came
before
us.
We
used
to
grow
beans
and
maize.
When
it
was
time
to
cultivate
the
land,
I
would
make
the
children
sit
down
while
I
worked.
The
children
were
staying
alone
while
I
was
here
at
the
farm.
My
oldest
learned
how
to
cook
in
grade
one.
I
was
mostly
staying
here
alone
as
my
husband
was
still
deployed
as
a
soldier.
I
was
terrified
of
living
alone
but
I
braved
it
until
now.
SM
from
Matobo
agreed
that
the
early
settlement
period,
living
alone
with
small
children,
was
really
hard:
When
we
came
here,
my
husband
was
working
in
Bulawayo,
while
I
stayed
to
clear
the
land
or
farm.
When
my
husband
was
alive,
I
used
to
farm
here,
and
I
would
get
a
good
harvest
to
sell.
Raising
children
was
difficult.
When
the
Esigodini
school
became
a
boarding
school,
my
son
had
to
stay
behind
because
I
could
no
longer
afford
it.
The
other
daughter
left
school
after
Form
4.
I
had
six
cattle,
and
I
sold
one.
My
husband
died
before
we
even
started
building.
I
sold
sorghum
and
one
cow
to
help
build
this
place.
Despite
the
hardships
and
the
real
practical
and
emotional
challenges
of
living
alone,
Mai
M
from
Masvingo
district
reiterated
the
sentiment
of
many.
Access
to
land
allowed
women
to
have
a
place
that
they
could
call
their
own,
where
production
could
take
place
to
support
growing
children:
I
have
an
offer
letter
in
my
name.
Getting
land
helped
me
because
having
a
place
where
you
and
your
children
can
call
your
own
is
important.
It
contributed
to
the
education
and
upkeep
of
my
children.
I
used
to
sell
my
produce
to
GMB,
and
that
money
helped
me
buy
cattle;
it
also
helped
my
sons
get
married.
As
NA
from
Mvurwi
explained,
moving
to
the
land
reform
areas
offered
opportunities
that
were
not
available
in
the
communal
areas.
Especially
in
a
polygamous
family,
the
tensions
that
existed
when
there
were
many
family
members
present
could
be
escaped
from,
“so
we
can
be
free”
When
we
found
out
that
our
husband
had
found
a
farm
this
side,
we
started
comparing
it
with
our
life
in
Chikwira
and
decided
that
coming
to
the
farm
was
better.
In
Chikwira,
we
were
living
a
decent
life
as
a
family,
but
we
thought
continuing
to
live
together
was
not
ideal.
We
had
a
place
to
farm
in
Chikwira,
but
because
there
were
many
of
us,
we
sometimes
did
not
get
along
in
the
family.
That
is
why
we
decided
to
leave:
to
be
free.
We
work
on
the
farm
together
as
a
family,
but
a
piece
of
the
land
is
reserved
for
our
husbands,
and
we
have
our
own
piece
that
belongs
to
the
wives.
When
there
is
too
much
work,
our
husband
will
hire
people
to
help
us;
otherwise,
we
usually
work
with
our
children.
Our
husband
buys
farming
inputs
for
everyone
and
also
pays
people
to
help
us
in
the
field
when
there
is
too
much
work.
This
is
the
second
blog
in
the
series
on
social
reproduction
and
land
reform.
This
blog
was
written
by
Sandra
Bhatasara
and
Ian
Scoones,
with
inputs
from
Tapiwa
Chatikobo
and
Felix
Murimbarimba.
It
was
first
published
on Zimbabweland.
The
CDF
has
garnered
widespread
support
in
recent
years
for
its
opposition
to
constitutional
amendments
to
extend
the
rule
of
Zimbabwean
President,
Emmerson
Mnangagwa.
Zimbabwe
recently
gazetted
Constitution
Amendment
Bill
No.
3,
which
would
introduce
far-reaching
proposals
to
usher
in
limitless
presidential
terms
for
the
ZANU-PF
under
the
guise
of
technical
reforms
to
electoral
cycles
and
governance
structures.
This
would
further
entrench
the
ZANU-PF’s
dictatorship
by
bending
the
Zimbabwean
constitution
to
permit
and
justify
complete
party-state
control
while
crushing
democracy.
This
latest
act
of
wanton
state
brutality
on
political
freedom
should
sound
alarm
bells
to
the
South
African
Presidency
and
the
Department
of
International
Relations
and
Cooperation
(DIRCO).
Zimbabwe’s
democratic
backslide
and
subsequent
state
collapse
continues
to
threaten
regional
stability
and
is
the
source
of
one
of
South
Africa’s
largest
migration
crises.
South
Africa
cannot
continue
to
turn
a
blind
eye
to
the
crisis
on
its
doorstep.
We
call
on
President
Cyril
Ramaphosa
and
Minister
Ronald
Lamola
to
condemn
Tendai
Biti’s
arrest
and
urgently
engage
with
Zimbabwean
authorities
through
diplomatic
channels
to
reconsider
this
draconian
legislative
proposal.
South
Africa
cannot
continue
to
prop
up
its
fraternity
of
leaders
who
continue
to
trample
on
democracy
and
the
rights
of
citizens
across
the
Southern
African
region.
This
recent
act
of
state
oppression
follows
a
worrying
trend
seen
in
countries
such
as
Uganda
and
Tanzania
which
have
arrested
opposition
leaders
on
trumped
up
charges
of
treason
to
silence
opposing
voices
and
sideline
democracy.
The
ANC,
which
holds
the
presidency
and
the
ministry
of
foreign
affairs
in
the
Government
of
National
Unity
(GNU),
cannot
turn
a
blind
eye
to
the
emergence
of
autocratic
despots
which
threaten
the
stability
of
the
entire
Southern
African
region.
Section
11.9
of
the
GNU’s
statement
of
intent
commits
South
Africa
to
a
foreign
policy
based
on
human
rights
and
constitutionalism.
South
Africa
cannot
continue
to
speak
out
against
every
other
injustice
in
other
parts
of
the
world
while
ignoring
the
most
egregious
violations
next
door.
President
Ramaphosa
and
Minister
Lamola
have
a
duty
to
promote
these
values
within
our
region,
and
it
is
incumbent
on
them
to
take
seriously
their
constitutional
duty
to
secure
regional
stability
and
prosperity
by
ensuring
that
freedom
and
democracy
survive
and
thrive.
During
an
interactive
session
with
citizens
on
his
WhatsApp
channel
on
Saturday,
Advocate
Nelson
Chamisa
raised
concerns
over
what
he
described
as
dishonesty
and
betrayal
within
opposition
ranks.
Nelson
Chamisa
Responding
to
a
question
on
how
Zimbabwe’s
challenges
can
be
resolved,
Chamisa
acknowledged
the
concerns
from
citizens
but
suggested
that
internal
issues
continue
to
stand
in
the
way
of
progress. “What
do
you
suggest
must
be
done
to
solve
the
Zimbabwean
problem?”
he
asked.
He
went
on
to
stress
that
while
he
appreciates
public
input,
the
main
hurdle
remains
a
lack
of
integrity
among
some
stakeholders. “I
hear
you.
But
the
only
challenge
is
dishonesty
and
betrayal,”
Chamisa
said.
Iran’s
a
bad
place. They’re
building
nuclear
weapons. We
had
to
bomb
them
a
few
months
back,
and
the
country
is
still
dangerous. I
put
all
those
warships
in
the
Middle
East
so
that
Iran
would
cave
to
us
in
negotiations,
but
the
country
is
still
playing
hardball.
It’s
almost
like
they’re
religious
fanatics
who
aren’t
listening
to
me.
What’s
that? Phone
call
from
Bibi?
Yeah,
yeah. I
know
you
want
to
destroy
Iran,
but
I
don’t
want
any
forever
wars.
What’s
that? Phone
call
from
MBS?
You
want
to
bomb
them,
too? Can
you
invest
any
more
money
in
the
United
States,
so
I
can
show
that
my
trade
policies
are
working? Great. You’ve
also
only
given
$2
billion
to
Jared;
could
you
invest
a
little
more
with
him?
Gee. Both
those
guys
want
me
to
bomb
Iran.
And
those
guys
are
real
leaders: Criminals. Murderers. My
kind
of
guys. Not
like
those
law-abiding
weenies
in
Europe.
What? Another
call
from
Bibi?
All
the
Iranian
leadership
will
be
in
one
place
tomorrow
morning? We
could
kill
dozens
of
them
at
once? We
might
never
have
another
opportunity
to
do
this?
Hell,
I
don’t
want
to
bomb
them.
But
we
can
kill
a
bunch
of
them. And
everyone
would
think
that
I’m
a
hero.
I would be
a
hero.
The
chairman
of
the
Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff
keeps
telling
me
that
the
Iranians
will
retaliate
if
we
attack. They’ll
close
the
Strait
of
Hormuz.
I
don’t
care
if
they
close
the
Strait
of
Vermouth. I’m
not
a
drinker,
anyway.
We
kidnapped
one
guy
from
Venezuela,
and
the
whole
country
surrendered. If
we
bomb
the
hell
out
of
Iran,
and
kill
a
bunch
of
leaders,
Iran
will
surrender,
too.
They’ll
surrender
quickly. Before
they
can
close
that
damn
strait.
The
chairman
also
tells
me
about
that
enriched
uranium
in
Iran.
He
talks
about
the
possibility
of
our
bombing
destroying
the
government. With
no
government,
there
could
be
sectarian
violence.
Sectarian
violence
could
be
a
problem
with
all
that
uranium
lying
around.
The
chairman
is
such
a
fool.
I’ve
never
heard
of
secretaries
getting
violent.
We’ll
bomb
Iran
and
the
secretaries
will
go
back
to
their
typing.
No
problem.
Not
only
that.
Once
we
bomb
the
hell
out
of
Iran,
the
new
leaders
will
come
back
to
the
negotiating
table.
That’ll
be
great.
We’ll
be
strong,
and
the
new
leaders
will
be
weak.
They’ll
agree
to
move
all
the
enriched
uranium
out
of
the
country
and
to
stop
their
enrichment
program.
I’ll
have
achieved
more
than
Obama
ever
did.
Obama.
All
that
guy
ever
did
was
play
golf,
the
lazy
S.O.B.
He
was
a
low-IQ
guy.
This
is
gonna
be
great.
Bomb
Iran.
Change
the
regime.
Get
rid
of
the
uranium.
It’ll
probably
take
a
day
or
two.
Once
again Vigil
activists
met
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy
in
London
to
continue
our
protest
against
the
human
rights
abuse
and
lack
of
democracy
in
Zimbabwe
perpetrated
by
ZANU
PF,
the
ruling
regime.
Thanks
to
those
who
came
today: Blessing
Harry,
Jonathan
Kariwo,
Munashe
Madziyauswa,
Ziwanai
Mbanje,
Samantha
Pfupajena,
Ephraim
Tapa
and
Tatenda
Tsumba.
Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/albums/72177720332653815/.
One
Vigil
activist
commented
on
the
exorbitant
fuel
increases
now
fuelling
inflation
in
Zimbabwe.
Food,
transport
costs,
accommodation
and
everything
have
gone
up,
in
some
cases
doubled,
much
beyond
the
reach
of
the
ordinary
Zimbabwean.
It’s
the
Tagwirei
and
ZANU
PF
who
stand
to
profit
from
all
this.
The
vigil
strongly
condemns
this
avaricious
and
parasitic
behaviour
by
those
connected
to
ZANU
PF’s
2030
agenda
and
calls
for
a
spirit
of
patriotism
and
empathy.
Next
Vigil
meeting
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy. Saturday
4th April
from
2
–
5
pm.
We
meet
on
the
first
and
third
Saturdays
of
every
month.
On
other
Saturdays
the
virtual
Vigil
will
run.
The
Restoration
of
Human
Rights
in
Zimbabwe
(ROHR) is
the
Vigil’s
partner
organisation
based
in
Zimbabwe.
ROHR
grew
out
of
the
need
for
the
Vigil
to
have
an
organisation
on
the
ground
in
Zimbabwe
which
reflected
the
Vigil’s
mission
statement
in
a
practical
way.
ROHR
in
the
UK
actively
fundraises
through
membership
subscriptions,
events,
sales
etc
to
support
the
activities
of
ROHR
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil’s
book
‘Zimbabwe
Emergency’ is
based
on
our
weekly
diaries.
It
records
how
events
in
Zimbabwe
have
unfolded
as
seen
by
the
diaspora
in
the
UK.
It
ccahronicles
the
economic
disintegration,
violence,
growing
oppression
and
political
manoeuvring
–
and
the
tragic
human
cost
involved. It
is
available
at
the
Vigil.
All
proceeds
go
to
the
Vigil
and
our
sister
organisation
the
Restoration
of
Human
Rights
in
Zimbabwe’s
work
in
Zimbabwe.
The
book
is
also
available
from
Amazon.
The
Vigil,
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy,
429
Strand,
London
meets
regularly
on
Saturdays
from
14.00
to
17.00
to
protest
against
gross
violations
of
human
rights
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil
which started
in
October
2002
will
continue
until
internationally-monitored,
free
and
fair
elections
are
held
in
Zimbabwe.
On
4
March
2026,
ZERA
raised
diesel
from
US$1.52
to
US$1.77
per
litre,
while
petrol
went
up
from
US$1.56
to
US$1.71.
Then,
on
Wednesday,
18
March,
diesel
jumped
again
to
US$2.05
and
petrol
to
US$2.17
per
litre.
ZCTU
Secretary
General
Tirivanhu
Marimo
said
that
while
adjusting
fuel
prices
in
line
with
global
oil
markets
is
generally
acceptable,
the
scale
of
these
increases
has
shocked
workers
and
ordinary
Zimbabweans,
who
are
now
paying
more
than
double
the
transport
costs.
Said
Marimo:
“ZERA
claims
increases
are
ostensibly
because
of
the
conflict
in
the
Middle
East.
We
do
not
believe
that
this
is
entirely
the
cause
of
the
increase
as
other
neighbouring
countries,
with
the
exception
of
Malawi,
have
fuel
prices
that
are
less
than
US$1.50.
“ZCTU
believes
our
fuel
is
overpriced
due
to
numerous
irrational
taxes
and
levies.
For
instance,
the
government
taxes
86
cents
per
liter
of
blend
petrol
and
also
taxes
42
cents
per
liter
for
diesel.
These
are
costs
directly
transferred
to
the
consumer
by
businesspeople.
“We
also
find
it
irrational
to
blend
petrol
with
ethanol
if
the
end
result
is
an
increase
in
fuel
costs.”
Marimo
said
the
fuel
price
hike
is
pushing
up
inflation
and
driving
up
the
cost
of
everyday
goods
and
services,
making
life
even
tougher
for
workers.
He
warned
that
Zimbabwe’s
working
people
have
already
suffered
as
wages
have
struggled
to
keep
up
with
rising
prices.
With
the
current
fuel
rates,
Marimo
added,
it’s
becoming
almost
impossible
for
workers
across
all
sectors
to
manage
on
their
salaries,
support
their
families,
or
even
get
to
work.
He
added:
“The
ZCTU
feels
price
increases
should
have
been
staggered
over
a
period
of
time
so
as
to
help
workers
to
adjust
to
the
constant
increase
of
transport
costs
as
well
as
other
basic
commodities.
“We
warn
the
government
that
the
current
wave
of
fuel
increases
could
trigger
civil
unrest
from
already
agitated
Zimbabweans
who
are
on
the
edge,
as
happened
in
January
2019
when
fuel
was
increased
by
between
130%
and
150%.”
The
ZCTU
has
urged
the
government
to
cut
or
even
scrap
fuel
taxes
altogether,
warning
that
keeping
prices
at
the
current
levels
will
only
add
to
the
suffering
of
workers,
businesses,
and
ordinary
Zimbabweans.
The
union
also
called
on
employers
to
give
meaningful
pay
rises
to
help
workers
cope
with
the
rising
cost
of
living,
which
has
been
driven
up
further
by
the
steep
fuel
prices.
