Category: News Feeds

As
a
follow-up
to
our
series
on
“Lights,
Camera,
CLE:
Making
Your
Presentation
a
Blockbuster,”
we
transition
from
the
spotlight
of
your
CLE
presentation
to
the
strategic
encore
that
follows.

Just
as
a
powerful
encore
can
turn
a
great
performance
into
an
unforgettable
one,
your
follow-up
actions
can
transform
a
successful
CLE
into
a
long-term
growth
opportunity.

This
final
part
of
our
series
is
dedicated
to
ensuring
that
the
impact
of
your
CLE
doesn’t
end
when
the
applause
fades
but
continues
to
resonate,
driving
your
professional
growth
and
strengthening
your
client
relationships.

The
Power
of
Feedback:
A
Gateway
to
Continuous
Improvement

Your
CLE
might
have
been
a
hit,
but
there’s
always
room
for
growth.

Feedback
is
your
most
valuable
tool
for
refining
your
future
presentations
and
ensuring
that
each
CLE
you
deliver
is
better
than
the
last.
Think
of
it
as
the
audience’s
encore—an
opportunity
for
them
to
engage
with
you
one
more
time,
providing
insights
that
can
help
you
improve
and
innovate.

Methods
for
Collecting
Feedback:
Getting
the
Encore
You
Need

To
get
the
most
out
of
feedback,
you
need
to
gather
it
effectively.
Here
are
some
strategies
to
ensure
you
capture
valuable
insights:

•

Surveys
and
Evaluation
Forms:
At
the
end
of
your
CLE,
distribute
short,
focused
surveys
that
attendees
can
fill
out
immediately.
Ask
specific
questions
about
what
worked,
what
didn’t,
and
what
they’d
like
to
see
in
future
presentations.
Ensure
the
survey
is
easy
to
complete,
whether
it’s
on
paper
or
digital.

•

Direct
Conversations:
Take
the
time
to
speak
with
attendees
after
the
CLE.
One-on-one
conversations
can
reveal
nuanced
feedback
that
surveys
might
miss.
Ask
open-ended
questions
about
their
experience
and
listen
carefully
to
their
responses.

•

Online
Reviews
and
Social
Media:
Encourage
attendees
to
share
their
thoughts
on
platforms
like
LinkedIn
or
in
professional
groups.
Not
only
does
this
provide
feedback,
but
it
also
increases
your
visibility
and
engagement
within
the
legal
community.

Following
Up
with
Live
Opportunities:
Building
on
Immediate
Engagement

One
of
the
most
valuable
forms
of
feedback
comes
from
those
who
approach
you
immediately
after
the
presentation.
These
individuals
have
specific
interests
or
concerns
that
drove
them
to
seek
you
out,
making
them
prime
candidates
for
follow-up.
Here’s
how
to
make
the
most
of
these
live
opportunities:

•

Capture
the
Moment:
When
someone
approaches
you
after
the
presentation,
treat
it
as
a
golden
opportunity.
Engage
with
them
fully,
listen
to
their
questions
or
comments,
and
take
notes
if
needed.
This
shows
that
you
value
their
input
and
are
genuinely
interested
in
their
perspective.

•

Prioritize
Follow-Up:
Make
it
a
priority
to
follow
up
with
these
individuals
within
a
few
days.
Whether
it’s
a
quick
email,
a
LinkedIn
connection,
or
a
phone
call,
acknowledge
the
conversation
you
had
and
offer
further
insights
or
resources.
This
personal
touch
can
turn
a
brief
interaction
into
a
long-term
professional
relationship.

•

Build
the
Relationship:
Use
these
initial
contacts
as
the
foundation
for
a
deeper
connection.
If
they
expressed
interest
in
a
specific
topic,
consider
sending
them
an
article,
inviting
them
to
a
future
event,
or
setting
up
a
one-on-one
consultation.
The
key
is
to
keep
the
momentum
going
and
show
that
you’re
committed
to
providing
value
beyond
the
CLE.

Analyzing
Feedback:
Turning
Critique
into
Growth

Once
you’ve
collected
feedback,
the
next
step
is
to
analyze
it
thoughtfully.
Don’t
just
skim
through
the
comments—dig
deep
to
identify
trends
and
insights
that
can
help
you
improve.
Here’s
how
to
approach
this:

•

Look
for
Patterns:
Are
multiple
attendees
mentioning
the
same
strengths
or
areas
for
improvement?
These
patterns
can
highlight
key
areas
to
focus
on
for
future
CLEs.

•
Weigh
the
Criticism:
Constructive
criticism
is
a
goldmine
for
growth,
but
not
all
feedback
will
be
useful.
Learn
to
distinguish
between
subjective
opinions
and
actionable
insights.

•
Celebrate
the
Wins:
Don’t
forget
to
acknowledge
the
positive
feedback.
Understanding
what
you
did
well
is
just
as
important
as
knowing
what
to
improve,
as
it
reinforces
the
aspects
of
your
presentation
that
resonate
with
your
audience.

Implementing
Changes:
The
Encore
of
Continuous
Improvement

Feedback
is
only
valuable
if
you
use
it.
Take
the
insights
you’ve
gained
and
implement
changes
in
your
next
CLE.
This
is
where
your
encore
truly
begins—by
evolving
and
adapting
based
on
your
audience’s
input,
you
ensure
that
each
CLE
you
deliver
builds
on
the
success
of
the
last.

•

Adjust
Your
Content:
If
attendees
found
certain
topics
particularly
engaging
or
felt
others
needed
more
depth,
adjust
your
content
accordingly.
Tailor
your
next
presentation
to
better
meet
the
needs
of
your
audience.

•

Enhance
Your
Delivery:
Did
feedback
suggest
that
your
pacing
was
off
or
that
your
slides
could
be
more
dynamic?
Work
on
refining
your
delivery
style,
incorporating
more
practice
or
new
techniques.

•

Incorporate
New
Ideas:
Sometimes
feedback
can
inspire
entirely
new
approaches
or
topics
for
future
CLEs.
Don’t
be
afraid
to
innovate
—
your
audience’s
suggestions
might
lead
to
your
next
big
success.

Setting
the
Stage
for
Lasting
Impact

By
collecting,
analyzing,
and
implementing
feedback,
you
ensure
that
your
CLE
is
not
just
a
one-time
event
but
a
stepping
stone
to
greater
success.
This
encore
performance
—
where
you
take
the
lessons
learned
and
apply
them
to
future
presentations
—
can
lead
to
long-term
growth,
stronger
client
relationships,
and
a
reputation
as
a
continuously
evolving
expert
in
your
field.

In
the
next
article,
we’ll
explore
how
to
deepen
your
connection
with
attendees
by
providing
additional
resources
and
staying
top
of
mind.
Just
like
a
great
performance
leaves
the
audience
wanting
more,
your
CLE
can
be
the
beginning
of
an
ongoing
professional
relationship
that
benefits
both
you
and
your
clients.

Checklist
for
Part
4,
Article
1:

Collecting
Feedback:

✔️ Distribute
Surveys
and
Evaluation
Forms:
Ensure
they
are
easy
to
complete
and
focused
on
key
aspects
of
your
presentation.

✔️ Engage
in
Direct
Conversations:
Take
time
to
speak
with
attendees
for
more
nuanced
feedback.

✔️ Encourage
Online
Reviews:
Utilize
social
media
and
professional
platforms
to
gather
public
feedback
and
increase
visibility.

Following
Up
with
Live
Opportunities:

✔️ Engage
Fully:
Capture
the
moment
when
someone
approaches
you
after
the
presentation,
showing
genuine
interest
in
their
input.

✔️ Prioritize
Follow-Up:
Reach
out
within
a
few
days
to
acknowledge
the
conversation
and
offer
further
insights.

✔️ Build
the
Relationship:
Keep
the
momentum
going
with
additional
resources,
invitations,
or
consultations
based
on
their
interests.

Analyzing
Feedback:

✔️ Identify
Patterns:
Look
for
recurring
themes
in
the
feedback
to
understand
strengths
and
areas
for
improvement.

✔️ Evaluate
Criticism:
Distinguish
between
subjective
opinions
and
actionable
insights.

✔️ Celebrate
Positive
Feedback:
Acknowledge
what
you
did
well
to
reinforce
your
strengths.

Implementing
Changes:

✔️ Refine
Content:
Adjust
topics
and
depth
based
on
audience
feedback.

✔️ Improve
Delivery:
Incorporate
feedback
on
your
pacing,
slides,
and
overall
presentation
style.

✔️ Innovate
with
New
Ideas:
Use
feedback
as
inspiration
for
new
approaches
or
topics
in
future
CLEs.

By
embracing
feedback
as
part
of
your
encore,
you’ll
not
only
improve
your
future
CLEs
but
also
create
lasting
growth
and
success
in
your
professional
journey.

---

Sejal
Bhasker
Patel is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
Author
of Rainmaker:
Unleashed
—
a
sharp,
strategic
playbook
for
attorneys
who
don’t
fit
the
traditional
mold.
She’s
the
founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
consulting
firm
that
works
directly
with
law
firms
and
attorneys
to
turn
relationships
into
revenue
—
without
selling
their
soul.
Her
work
is
blunt,
tailored,
and
built
on
one
core
belief:
Authenticity
isn’t
a
liability
—
it’s
your
strongest
competitive
edge.
www.sageivyconsulting.com

Yet
another
one
to
add
to
the
“it’s
OK
if
we
do
it”
file
for
the
Trump
administration.
This
administration
is
cool
with censoring
speech, nationalizing
elections,
seizing
the means
of
production,
and
blackmailing law
firms and universities.
It
would
be
heated
AF
if
any other administration
did
these
things,
but
since
it’s
the
one
doing
it,
it’s
all
cool
and
(probably
not)
legal.

Not
a
day
goes
by
that
its
hypocrisy isn’t
exposed.
Here’s
the
latest,
which
certainly
isn’t
the
last:
the
DOJ’s
insistence
that
government
employees
be
given
preferential
treatment
in
court.

Multiple
bullshit
prosecutions
are
underway,
with AG
Pam
Bondi’s DOJ
hoping
to
convert
regular
protest
stuff
into
long-lasting
federal
felony
charges.
This
hasn’t
gone
well
for
the
DOJ,
which
tends
to
find
itself
rejected
by
grand
juries
when
not
getting
its
vindictive
prosecutions
tossed
because
they’ve
been
brought
by
prosecutors
who don’t
have
legal
claim to
the
positions
they’re
holding.

While
the
government
continues
to
make
social
media
hay
by
tweeting
out
wild
allegations
and
the
personal
information
of
people
who
have
yet
to
have
their
day
in
court,
it
simultaneously
claims
it
should
be
illegal
to
identify
federal
officers
and
post
their
information
to
social
media.

And
while
that’s
just
the
government
being
hypocritical
in
terms
of
social
media
blasts,
it’s
engaging
in
another
level
of
hypocrisy
that’s
not
as
easily
dismissed. As
Josh
Gerstein
reports
for
Politico,
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
personal
participation
in
this
form
of
hypocrisy
is
not
only
inexcusable,
but
it’s
also
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
law.

Two
federal
judges
have
raised
concerns
about
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
use
of
social
media
to
publicize
a
wave
of
arrests
last
month
of
people
charged
with
interfering
with
federal
officers
during
an
immigration
enforcement
surge
in
Minnesota.

When
the
government
seeks
protective
orders
to
shield
the
details
of
cases
from
the
public
eye,
the
order
applies
to
the
government
as
much
as
it
does
to
the
defendants.
But
since
Bondi
can’t
keep
herself
from
scoring
internet
points
on
behalf
of
the
Trump
administration,
she’ll
be
lucky
to
keep
these
particular
prosecutions
going.

That’s
the
upshot
of
this court
order [PDF],
handed
down
by
Minnesota
federal
judge
Dulce
Foster:

As
a
threshold
matter,
the
government’s
claimed
concern
about
the
victim/agents’
“dignity
and
privacy”
and
the
risk
of
doxxing
is
eyebrow-raising,
to
say
the
least.
On
January
28,
2026,
at
12:53
p.m.,
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
publicly
posted
a
tweet
on
X
announcing,
to
a
national
audience,
that
Ms.
Flores
was
arrested
along
with
15
other
people
as
“rioters”
who
“have
been
resisting
and
impeding
our
law
enforcement
officers.”
[…]
In
publicly
posting
that
information,
the
government
failed
to
respect
Ms.
Flores’s
dignity
and
privacy,
exposed
her
to
a
risk
of
doxxing,
and
generally
thumbed
its
nose
at
the
notion
that
defendants
are
innocent
until
proven
guilty.
The
post
also
directly
violated
a
court
order
sealing
the
case
(ECF
No.
6),
which
was
not
lifted
until
the
Court
conducted
initial
appearances
later
that
day
(see
ECF
No.
7).

If
the
argument
is
that
it’s
dangerous
for
federal
officers
to
be
publicly
identified
but
perfectly
fine
for
random
citizens
to
be
exposed
to
threats
of
violence,
the
argument
is
deeply
flawed.
At
worst,
it’s
the
most
powerful
people
arguing
that
the
least
powerful
people
should
be
exposed
to
the
same
sort
of
stuff
they
claim
federal
officers might be
exposed
to
if
their
names
are
made
public.

At
best,
it’s
a
tacit
admission
that
more
people
are
opposed
to
this
administration’s
actions
than
are
opposed
to
the
actions
of
those
who
engage
in
protests.
If
the
DOJ
really
believed
what
the
government
is
doing
was
good
and
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
public,
it
wouldn’t
seek
protective
orders
preventing
the
release
of
personal
information.

But
that’s
not
the
case
it
made
in
court.
And
courts
are
now
refusing
to
pretend
the
government
is
operating
in
good
faith
when
it
says
some
personal
information
is
more
equal
than
other
personal
information.

This
determination
was
echoed
in
another
court
decision
dealing
with
a
Minneapolis-based
prosecution:

At
a
hearing
in
a
separate
Minneapolis
case
last
week, another
magistrate
judge,
Shannon
Elkins,
directed
prosecutors to
“address
whether
the
public
posting
of
photographs
violated
the
Court’s
sealing
order.”
The
government
missed
a
deadline
Tuesday
to
respond.
Elkins
later
agreed
to
extend
the
deadline
until
Monday.

In
the
first
case,
the
judge
gave
the
government
what
it
wanted,
but
applied
those
desires
to
both
parties
in
the
prosecution.
If
the
defense
team
is
barred
from
publicly
revealing
information
about
the
government
officers,
the
government
is
likewise
barred
from
making
information
about
the
defendants
public.
It
doesn’t
get
to
have
it
both
ways.

While
it
would
have
been
somewhat
refreshing
to
see
the
court
allow
the
defendants
to
release
whatever
information
they’d
gathered
about
the
federal
officers
to,
I
guess,
make
things
even,
I
also
recognize
“two
wrongs
make
a
right”
is
no
way
to
run
a
judicial
system.
I
do
say
that
very
hesitantly,
however.
After
all,
we’re
being
governed
by
people
who
believe
that
even
if
they
purposefully
do
wrong,
there’s
no
power
that
can
stop
them.
But
there’s
little
that’s
more
satisfying
than
beating
cheaters
at
their
own
game
while
playing
by
the
rules.
Hopefully,
this
great
nation
will
be
able
to
weather
the
constant
attacks
on
what
makes
it
great
by
people
who
are
seeking
to
destroy
it
from
the
inside.

Judges
To
AG
Pam
Bondi:
It’s
OK
For
The
Gov’t
To
Dox
People,
But
Not
OK
For
People
To
Dox
Gov’t
Employees?

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

OpenAI
Rewrites
Contract,
Anthropic
Returns
to
Negotiate—The
Chaos
Continues

FCC
Approves
Cox,
Charter
Merger
On
Condition
They
Promise
To
Be
More
Racist

Judge
Says
He’s
Sick
Of
The
Government’s
Shit;
Threatens
To
Make
DHS,
DOJ
Testify
Under
Oath

*
Almost
200
former
federal
judges
sign
amicus
brief
arguing
that
unexplained
shadow
docket
orders
aren’t
binding
in
effort
to
stop
the
Supreme
Court’s
vibelawyering.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
“Google’s
AI
Sent
an
Armed
Man
to
Steal
a
Robot
Body
for
It
to
Inhabit,
Then
Encouraged
Him
to
Kill
Himself,
Lawsuit
Alleges”
This
case
is
basically
the
Florida
Man
Turing
Test.
[Futurism]

*
Trump
administration
officially
declares
Anthropic
a
supply
chain
risk,
arguing
that
the
company
they
gave
access
to
all
their
classified
information
is
now
a
spy
because
it
wouldn’t
agree
to
build
murder
bots.
Anthropic
is
going
to
sue.
[Law360]

*
“A
number
of
senior
associates,
partners
and
paralegals”
laid
off
at
UK
firm.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
ICE
arrested
a
journalist
without
a
warrant
in
least
surprising
headline
of
the
day.
[Reuters]

*
Indicted
judge
loses
reelection.
[ABA
Journal]

*
NY
lawmakers
consider
banning
AI
from
dispensing
legal
advice.
Which
is
all
well
and
good
until
you
remember
that
much
of
the
“legal
advice”
it
would
dispense
would
be
drafts
for
lawyers.
[StateScoop]

A
CSI-style
investigation
in
Zimbabwe
helped
to
successfully
prosecute
two
people
for
killing
a
lion
and
trafficking
its
teeth,
flesh
and
other
body
parts
in
February.
Forensic
specialists
analyzed
DNA
collected
from
parts
seized
by
authorities
and
matched
it
with
a
radio-collared
lion
that
was
killed
two
years
ago.
This
conviction
was
historic:
It’s
the
world’s first
case
to
use
a
lion’s
genetic
material and
trace
it
back
to
an
individual
to
pin
down
wildlife
criminals.
The
two
defendants
were
sentenced
to
two
years
in
prison
for
their
crimes.

The
conviction
is
tied
to
a
2024
case
in
which
poachers
snared
and
killed
a
male
lion
near
Hwange
National
Park,
close
to
the
world-famous
Victoria
Falls.
Researchers
knew
this
particular
lion,
as
they’d
tracked
its
movements
as
part
of
a
study.
When
they
captured
and
anesthetized
the
cat
to
fit
it
with
a
radio
collar
some
years
ago,
biologists
took
blood
samples
and
logged
its
genetic
and
health
information
into
their
database.

Investigators
used
that
DNA
data
to
trace
the
origins
of
seized
lion
parts,
which
included
three
bags
of
meat,
16
claws
and
four
teeth
that
were
to
be
sold
on
the
black
market.
Parts
from
captive-bred
lions
can
be
traded
internationally
and
in
Zimbabwe
with
the
appropriate
paperwork,
but
the
sellers
didn’t
have
permits,
and
proving
these
seized
parts
came
from
a
wild
lion
and
not
a
captive-bred
one
was
key
to
this
case.
That
would
mean
poaching,
which
is
 illegal.

“This
breakthrough
represents
more
than
scientific
achievement;
it
embodies
our
determination
to
protect
biodiversity
for
future
generations
to
come,”
Zimbabwe-based
nonprofit Victoria
Falls
Wildlife
Trust wrote
in
a statement.

Scientists
from
that
organization,
with
support
from
the
U.K.-based
NGOs TRAFFIC and TRACE,
conducted
the
genetic
analysis
to
generate
a
full
DNA
profile
from
the
lion
parts
and
match
it
with
the
slain
lion’s
genetic
material.

DNA
forensics
first
came
into
use
in
criminal
investigations
in
1985,
after
British
geneticist
Alec
Jeffreys
discovered
that
genetic
patterns
could
effectively
identify
individuals,
a
process
he
dubbed
“DNA
fingerprinting.”

The
process
has
been
used
for
decades
to
identify
trafficked
wildlife,
but
recent
developments
in
genetic
analysis
and
growing
databases
have
helped
researchers
trace
samples
to
specific
individuals.
DNA
evidence
has
since
been
used
to convict
wildlife
poachers,
but
this
is
the
first
instance
of
a
lion’s
DNA
being
used
to
nab
its
killers.

Wildlife
poaching
and
trafficking
cases
are
often
difficult
to
prosecute
because
often
rely
on
circumstantial
evidence.
In
Zimbabwe,
where
the
trade
in
captive-bred
lion
parts
is
permitted
with
necessary
paperwork,
prosecutors
face
the
added
complication
of
having
to
prove
that
parts
came
from
a
wild
lion.

Without
convincing
evidence,
making
successful
convictions
in
wildlife-related
crimes
are
challenging
and
rare.
But
the
recent
case
shows
DNA
forensics
is
beginning
to
change
that.

“DNA
has
revolutionized
how
we
present
evidence
in
court,
because
the
sequencing
can
go
right
down
to
the
individual
in
most
cases,”
said
Sheldon
Jordan,
who
has
worked
with
Canada’s
wildlife
enforcement
agency
but
wasn’t
involved
in
this
conviction.
“I
don’t
think
we
could
regulate
trade
as
well
as
we
do
without
being
able
to
fall
back
on
DNA
analysis
for
evidentiary
purposes.”

Lions
are
the most-traded
wildcats in
the
world.
Although
African
lions
can
be
traded
internationally
with
permits,
they’re
also
heavily
poached
across
the
continent,
driven
by
demand
for
their
body
parts
that
are
used
in
traditional
medicine
as
well
as cultural
practices in
Asia
and
Africa.

Tigers
have
been
in
the
crosshairs
for
four
decades,
targeted
for
their
bones.
China
and
Southeast
Asian
countries
are
cracking
down
on
trafficked
tiger
bones,
which
are
used
in tiger
bone
wine,
an
exorbitantly
expensive
elixir
used
as
traditional
medicine
and
served
as
a
way
to
flaunt
prestige
and
power.
The
bones
of
other
big
cats,
including
lions,
sometimes replace them.
Lion
parts
are
also
widely
used
within
Africa
for
medicines,
rituals
and
as
talismans.

Poaching
poses
an
“existential
threat”
to
African
lions,
a
2026 study found:
fewer
than
25,000
wild
lions
remain
across
the
continent,
an
order
of
magnitude
less
than
the
roughly
200,000
found
there
a
century
ago.

In
Zimbabwe,
poaching
is
an
ongoing
threat.
Two
lions
were
poached
there
last
year,
according
to
TRAFFIC’s Wildlife
Trade
Portal data.
Beyond
the
loss
of
individual
lions,
killing
a
male
that
heads
a
pride
often
spells
doom
for
its
cubs:
When
a
new
male
takes
over,
he
often
kills
off
the
former
leader’s
progeny.

Now,
another
lion
case
is
in
court
in
South
Africa,
with
prosecutors
again
using
DNA
fingerprinting
as
evidence.
The
recent
conviction
in
neighboring
Zimbabwe
“sets
an
important
precedent
for
how
science
can
support
enforcement”
in
the
future,
according
to
Markus
Burgener,
a
wildlife
trade
expert
with
TRAFFIC,
focusing
on
Southern
Africa.
It
can
help
bring
criminals
to
justice,
he
said.

Post
published
in:

Featured

In
a
letter
dated
5
March
2026,
Ndlovu
informed
Mr
Sithole
that
he
was
withdrawing
with
immediate
effect
from
representing
the
applicants
in
proceedings
before
the
Constitutional
Court.
The
letter,
written
on
behalf
of
the
Apex
Legal
Group
of
Advocates,
cites
a
breakdown
in
trust,
unpaid
legal
fees,
and
reputational
attacks
linked
to
the
litigation.

The
“Mr
Sithole”
referred
to
in
the
letter
is
Nqobani
Sithole,
a
Zimbabwean
lawyer
who
has
been
representing
Mbuso
Fuzwayo
and
the
organisation
Ibhetshu
LikaZulu
in
the
Constitutional
Court
case
related
to
the
attempt
to
challenge
or
clarify
the
legality
of
extending
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
term
to
2030.

Ndlovu
states
that
from
the
outset
he
had
warned
both
Mr
Sithole
and
Professor
Jonathan
Moyo,
whom
he
describes
as
the
principal
architect
of
the
case,
that
the
matter
carried
significant
reputational
risks.

Because
of
those
risks,
he
says,
he
required
clear
commitments
and
undertakings
before
agreeing
to
act.

According
to
the
advocate,
those
assurances
were
given
but
were
not
honoured.
He
says
that
after
the
Constitutional
Court
granted
direct
access
in
the
matter,
he
was
informed
that
payment
could
not
be
made,
despite
his
understanding
that
funds
had
already
been
received
in
connection
with
the
case.

The
dispute
appears
to
have
escalated
further
after
public
allegations
were
made
against
him
by
Professor
Moyo.
In
the
letter,
Ndlovu
describes
the
accusations
as
baseless
and
says
they
have
caused
reputational
harm.
He
characterises
the
attacks
as
choreographed
and
says
the
developments
signalled
a
deterioration
in
the
professional
relationship.

“As
a
result,”
he
writes,
“I
cannot
continue
to
serve
in
circumstances
in
which
I
am
treated
as
expendable
or
as
an
instrument
of
convenience.”

The
withdrawal
raises
questions
about
the
future
direction
of
the
Constitutional
Court
case,
which
had
already
drawn
interest
because
of
its
political
implications
and
the
prominent
figures
associated
with
it.
Legal
withdrawals
of
this
nature
are
unusual
in
high
profile
constitutional
litigation,
particularly
after
a
case
has
already
secured
direct
access
to
the
country’s
highest
court
on
constitutional
matters.

Ndlovu
concludes
that
he
is
withdrawing
in
order
to
protect
his
professional
integrity
and
dignity.

The
development
introduces
uncertainty
into
the
proceedings
and
will
force
the
applicants
to
secure
new
legal
representation
at
a
critical
stage
of
the
case.
It
also
highlights
growing
tensions
among
some
of
the
actors
involved
in
politically
sensitive
litigation
in
Zimbabwe,
where
legal
battles
often
intersect
with
wider
political
rivalries
and
public
commentary.

The
case
became
very
controversial
when
certain
people
from
civil
society
supported
it,
whether
knowingly
or
unknowingly,
that
it
was
being
used
toi
open
the
door
for
the
2030
project
to
succeed.
And
now
this
letter
has
opened
a
Pandora’s
box,
making
it
clear
that
the
case
had
actually
been
used
for
that.

Post
published
in:

Featured

A
fierce
battle
of
lawyers
is
looming
between
Nqobani
Sithole,
Method
Ndlovu
and
Zibusiso
Ncube
over
the
controversial
Matabeleland
pressure
group
Ibhetshu
LikaZulu
and
one
of
its
leaders
Mbuso
Fuzwayo’s
Constitutional
Court
bid
to
block
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
term
extension
after
Ndlovu
quit
the
case
in
a
huff
yesterday,
citing
a
breaking
of
trust,
non-payment
of
his
legal
fees
and
reputational
risk,
it
has
emerged.

Informed
sources
told
The
NewsHawks
last
night
that
said
there
were
simmering
volatile
tensions
behind
the
scenes
between
Sithole
(left)
and
Ndlovu
(right-up)
after
a
fallout
over
the
case,
which
has
far-reaching
legal
and
political
implications
for
Zimbabwe.
Ncube
has
been
entangled
in
the
case
through
association
and
his
attendant
liaison
role.
The
sources
said
all
hell
broke
loose
yesterday
after
Sithole
had
moved
to
remove
Ndlovu
from
the
case
following
recent
controversies
with
former
minister
Jonathan
Moyo,
whom
the
latter
claims
is
the
“principal
architect
of
the
litigation”.

Sithole
is
said
to
have
contacted
Ndlovu
yesterday
to
tell
him
that
he
was
being
removed
from
case,
promoting
the
latter
to
quickly
write
a
letter
withdrawing
from
the
matter
to
pre-empt
the
former
and
coming
developments.
The
letter
was
said
to
have
been
leaked
to
the
media,
including
to
The
NewsHawks,
and
this
is
said
to
have
infuriated
Sithole
who
now
privately
accuse
Ndlovu
of
being
unprofessional
and
playing
dirty.
As
a
result,
the
case
is
likely
to
end
up
being
reported
to
the
Lawyer
Society
of
Zimbabwe,
raising
the
stakes
and
risking
careers,
sources
say.

This
ominous
development
has
career-ending
implications
for
some
of
the
lawyers
involved.
Ndlovu
was
initially
hired
as
the
lead
counsel
for
Fuzwayo
and
Ibhetshu’s
Constitutional
Court
case,
which
challenges
Mnangagwa’s
term
extension
to
2030.
The
case
was
prompted
by
Zanu
PF’s
2025
annual
conference
resolution
in
Mutare
in
October
instructing
the
party
to
amend
the
constitution
to
allow
Mnangagwa
to
extend
his
tenure
to
2030.
The
Mutare
resolution
reasserted
the
Bulawayo
decision
on
the
issue.
Mnangagwa’s
constitutional
two
terms
in
end
in
2028.

Fuzwayo
and
Ibhetshu
rushed
to
court
to
challenge
the
resolution.
However,
controversy
followed
as
claims
emerged
the
case
was
a
collusive
legal
action
to
help
Mnangagwa’s
plan
through
judicial
manipulation.
Claims
of
a
contrived
case
have
compounded
the
situation
now
increasingly
becoming
a
political
and
legal
imbroglio.
Subsequent
to
the
Zanu
PF
conference
and
the
Fuzwayo
case,
a
raft
of
constitutional
amendments
have
been
made
to
extend
Mnangagwa’s
term
and
change
the
political,
electoral
and
governance
systems.
Sithole
of
Sithole
Chambers
is
the
instructing
lawyer.
So
Ndlovu
was
instructed
by
Sithole
to
represent
Fuzwayo
and
Ibhetshu.

But
Ndlovu
has
now
withdrawn
as
counsel
for
Fuzwayo
and
Ibhetshu,
citing
a
breakdown
in
trust,
lack
of
payment
and
reputational
risk.
In
a
formal
letter
to
Sithole
yesterday,
Ndlovu
cited
collapse
in
mutual
expectations
between
himself
and
the
clients,
lack
of
payment
for
his
legal
services
in
the
matter,
and
reputational
damage
due
“unfounded
allegations”
by
Moyo
as
reasons
for
his
withdrawal.
This
referred
to
Moyo’s
recent
explanation
of
a
leaked
audio
in
which
he
was
allegedly
speaking
to
Zanu
PF
leaders
on
how
to
manage
the
court
case.
However,
Moyo
said
he
was
not
speaking
to
any
Zanu
PF
officials
in
the
conversation
but
to
Ncube
and
Ndlovu.
He
produced
WhatsApp
messages
as
evidence.
But
Ndlovu
has
given
a
different
version
of
events,
creating
a
potentially
long-running
saga.

His
withdrawal
has
left
the
high-profile
constitutional
application
in
a
state
of
paralysis
and
uncertainty
as
applicants
now
lack
legal
representation.
It
has
also
left
Sithole,
himself
and
by
extension
Ncube
explosively
at
loggerheads
in
a
clash
of
lawyers
likely
to
open
a
Pandora’s
Box
on
the
case
and
concomitant
legal
and
political
issues
involved.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Ellen
Fungisai
Chipango,


University
of
Johannesburg

Zimbabwe’s
2019
renewable

energy
policy
envisions
a
transition
to

green
energy
in
which
women
and
men
participate
equally
and
benefit
equitably.

But
the
real
test
of
this
promise
lies
in
whether
women
and
men
have
equal
access
to
renewable
energy
and
are
able
to
use
it
for
the
tasks
they
most
need
to
accomplish
in
their
everyday
lives.

As
an
energy
justice
researcher,
I
wanted
to

find
out
how
residents,
government
officials
and
energy
non-governmental
organisations
view
gender
(in)equality
in
the
move
to
green
energy.

I
chose
to
interview
people
from
Zingondi
(a
rural
area
in
the
Manicaland
province
of
Zimbabwe)
because
this
area
offers
a
clear
case
of
how
renewable
energy
policy
plays
out
in
low-income,
rural
areas
that
are
not
connected
to
the
national
grid.

I
asked
the
people
I
interviewed
what
a
truly
equal
and
equitable
energy
policy
would
look
like
in
practice.
By
equal,
I
mean
giving
women
and
men
the
same
opportunities
and
access
to
energy.
By
equitable,
I
mean
recognising
that
they
often
start
from
unequal
social
and
economic
positions,
and
that
women
may
therefore
need
additional
support
(funds,
training,
or
extra
decision-making
powers)
to
reach
the
same
level
of
energy
access
and
benefit
as
men.

There
are
about

39
households
living
in
Zingondi.
They
are
not
connected
to
the
national
electricity
grid.
To
cook,
they
use
fuelwood
and
what’s
left
after
crops
are
harvested
(biomass).
Many
families
live
in
thatched
mud
houses.
When
I
visited,
I
saw
that
all
families
used
solar
lanterns.
Some
also
had
solar
panels
to
charge
phones
and
radios.

My
research
found
that
having
such
limited
access
to
electricity
did
nothing
to
change
traditional
gender
roles
where
women
do
a
lot
more
unpaid
work
around
the
house
than
men.
For
example,
women
remained
primarily
responsible
for
cooking
on
fire.
They
also
had
very
little
control
over
new
forms
of
solar
energy
(what
to
buy
and
how
to
fix
it
if
it
broke)
as
these
decisions
and
actions
were
controlled
by
the
men
in
the
families.

Overall,
women
saw
little
change
in
their
economic
or
decision-making
power
even
though
clean
forms
of
energy
had
come
into
their
lives.

My
findings
show
that
even
new
renewable
energy
is
never
neutral.
It
is
shaped
by
power:
who
controls
resources,
who
captures
the
benefits,
and
who
remains
excluded.
Achieving
gender
equality
in
energy
transitions
needs
more
than
introducing
small
solar
devices
or
promising
future
grid
access.

Zimbabwe’s
energy
policies
must
move
beyond
promises
of
gender
equality
in
energy
access
and
deliver
real
transformation
on
the
ground.
The
country’s

renewable
energy
policy
commits
to
gender
equality
and
women’s
participation,
but
pays
less
attention
to
whether
this
is
taking
place.

If
this
change
does
not
happen,
new
energy
initiatives
will
simply
prop
up
existing
gender
hierarchies
which
leave
women
at
the
bottom,
rather
than
transforming
women’s
lives.

Solar
power
in
rural
Zingondi

Zingondi
is
a
resettlement
area
(where
land
was
redistributed
under
the
fast-track
land
reform
programme
to
small-scale
farmers)
whose
households
have
three
hectares
of
land
each.

Most
families
there
depend
on
small-scale
farming
to
grow
food.
But
they
face
problems
of
insecure
land
rights
(they
only
have
temporary
licences
to
occupy
the
land),

political
disputes,
and
limited
access
to
resources
to
develop
their
farms.

At
first
glance,
the
solar
lanterns
in
every
home,
purchased
by
the
residents,
indicate
that
universal
access
to
affordable,
reliable
and
modern
energy
is
being
achieved.
But
when
I
asked
women
how
solar
energy
had
improved
their
lives,
their
responses

were
cautious.

First,
many
women
were
still
cooking
with
firewood,
because
small
solar
devices
can’t
power
electric
stoves.
One
female
participant
observed:

When
I
am
cooking
using
semi-dried
wood,
no
one
can
even
enter
the
kitchen
because
of
the
smoke.
It
is
like
a
prison
cell!

Second,
they
had
little
decision-making
power
over
energy:

Solar
gives
men
more
power
to
control
us
in
the
home
…
if
it’s
not
the
money
to
buy
the
gadgets,
such
as
solar
lanterns,
it’s
how
to
use
them,
or
it’s
about
when
and
where
to
buy
a
replacement.

Third,
the
quality
of
solar
lanterns
varied.
Families
that
received
remittances
from
relatives
working
in
South
Africa
were
able
to
afford
higher-quality
appliances.
But
poorer
households
could
not.

Cheap
solar
lanterns
often
overheated
and
“blew”
after
a
short
time.
Paying
for
replacements
placed
financial
strain
on
many
women.

Fourth,
having
light
at
night
made
the
working
day
for
these
rural
women
even
longer:

Having
a
light
bulb
(solar
lantern)
means
more
work
to
cover,
not
to
relax.
The
reason
is:
I
am
a
woman!

Women
also
reported
that
their
husbands
did
not
allow
them
to
travel
to
renewable
energy
meetings
where
they
could
learn
more
about
solar
power.

Some
women
hid
small
amounts
of
money
from
their
husbands
to
avoid
conflict
or
to
retain
some
financial
autonomy
for
buying
electricity
later
–
known
in
ChiShona
as

kusungirira
mari
muchiuno
(“to
tie
money
around
the
waist”).
But
because
these
savings
were
hidden,
the
women
couldn’t
spend
them
on
larger
or
more
reliable
solar
energy
systems.

What
needs
to
happen
next

Zimbabwe’s
energy
transition
must
make
sure
that
women
are
not
just
passive
recipients
of
energy
infrastructure
but
active
participants
in
shaping
how
energy
is
accessed,
used
and
managed.

Women
begin
from
unequal
positions.
So
energy
policies
must
tackle
the
question
of
the
power
relations
that
shape
who
controls
resources
within
households
and
communities.

Zimbabwe’s

energy
policy
emphasises
women’s
inclusion
and
solar
entrepreneurship.
However,
its
largely
market-driven
approach
means
that
only
women
who
can
afford
solar
systems
benefit,
leaving
off-grid
and
marginalised
communities
like
Zingondi
excluded.

To
make
the
policy
truly
transformative,
the
government
could
take
these
steps:

• introduce
  targeted
  subsidies,
  micro
  grants
  or
  low-interest
  loans
  for
  rural
  women
• support
  community-shared
  solar
  schemes
• set
  quotas
  for
  women
  in
  resettlement
  areas
  to
  participate
  in
  renewable
  energy
  schemes
• convene
  training
  in
  local
  areas
  where
  childcare
  is
  provided,
  so
  that
  women
  can
  participate
• set
  up
  mentorship
  programmes
  to
  strengthen
  women’s
  leadership
  and
  decision-making
• implement
  regular
  monitoring
  to
  ensure
  that
  women
  not
  only
  participate
  but
  also
  gain
  meaningful
  control
  over
  energy
  resources.

This
is
happening
in
other
countries.
In
rural
Bangladesh,
women
have
been
trained
as

solar
technicians,
and
in
Nepal,
women
have
taken
on

leading
roles
in
managing
tiny,
micro
hydro
plants.

In
India,
government‑linked
schemes
such
as
the
Ministry
of
New
and
Renewable
Energy’s
Women
in
Renewable
Energy
initiative
provide
training
and
business
support
that

expand
women’s
participation
in
the
energy
sector.

Unless
these
changes
are
made,
solar
energy
infrastructure
will
expand
in
rural
Zimbabwe
without
expanding
equality.

Ellen
Fungisai
Chipango,
Senior
Research
Associate,


University
of
Johannesburg

This
article
is
republished
from

The
Conversation
under
a
Creative
Commons
license.
Read
the

original
article.

The
city’s
finance
manager,
Euthera
Siziba,
said
residents
should
register
their
email
addresses
and
mobile
numbers
so
they
can
receive
electronic
bills
and
access
their
accounts
from
home.

Speaking
at
a
residents’
meeting
at
Pumula
North
Hall
on
Wednesday,
Siziba
said
the
council
was
shifting
towards
a
paperless
system
to
make
it
easier
for
people
to
view
and
settle
their
accounts.

“We
are
doing
this
to
help
residents
not
to
travel
to
city
council
offices
but
do
it
in
the
comfort
of
their
homes,”
he
said.

Residents
will
receive
their
bills
through
email
or
messaging
platforms,
while
those
without
WhatsApp
or
email
accounts
will
receive
them
via
SMS,
he
added.

The
move
comes
as
the
council
struggles
with
low
payment
levels
in
some
suburbs.
Siziba
said
residents
in
Pumula
owed
the
municipality
about
ZiG34
million
(around
$1.3m).

“About
80%
of
residents
are
not
paying
their
bills,
while
only
20%
are
paying,”
he
said,
warning
that
the
shortfall
was
affecting
service
delivery.

He
urged
residents
with
outstanding
balances
to
approach
the
council
to
arrange
payment
plans,
which
would
allow
them
to
make
an
initial
deposit
and
then
settle
the
remaining
amount
over
time.

“Payment
plans
are
structured
according
to
one’s
ability
to
pay,”
he
said.

Siziba
also
outlined
the
council’s
billing
structure,
which
includes
fixed
charges
for
services
such
as
water,
sewerage,
refuse
collection
and
property
rates.

For
homes
measuring
200
square
metres
or
less,
the
fixed
water
charge
is
$2.25,
sewerage
$0.82,
refuse
collection
$7.43
and
property
rates
$5.23,
he
said.

Variable
charges
are
then
added
depending
on
consumption.

He
noted
that
fixed
charges
still
apply
even
if
households
do
not
receive
water,
and
advised
residents
to
repair
leaking
pipes
and
ensure
taps
are
properly
closed
to
avoid
high
bills.

Siziba
also
said
the
council
was
currently
facing
a
shortage
of
water
meters
after
some
were
stolen.

“If
residents
have
money,
they
can
buy
their
meters
and
bring
them
for
testing
at
the
water
works
together
with
their
invoice,
and
the
money
will
be
transferred
to
their
accounts,”
he
said.

Ward
17
councillor,
Sikhululekile
Moyo,
warned
that
residents
who
repeatedly
fail
to
pay
their
bills
could
face
legal
action.

“Pay
your
bills
every
month
to
avoid
confiscation
of
your
houses
by
the
council,”
she
said.

She
added
that
the
council
would
first
send
SMS
reminders,
make
phone
calls
and
issue
written
notices
before
taking
further
legal
steps.

Post
published
in:

Business

However,
the
same
report
reveals
the
bank’s
visibility
and
accessibility
remain
consistently
low
across
most
districts,
with
about
60
percent
of
women
consulted
during
field
visits
unaware
of
the
bank’s
existence
or
its
products,
seven
years
after
its
launch.

These
findings
are
contained
in
the
Report
of
the
Portfolio
Committee
on
Women’s
Affairs,
Community,
Small
and
Medium
Enterprises
Development
on
the
operations
of
the
Zimbabwe
Women’s
Microfinance
Bank,
which
evaluated
the
institution’s
impact
on
women’s
economic
empowerment
since
its
inception.

According
to
the
committee’s
analysis
of
cumulative
loan
beneficiaries
from
2018
to
December
31,
2024,
a
total
of
49
353
beneficiaries
received
loans
through
the
bank
across
Zimbabwe’s
ten
provinces.

Cumulative
Beneficiaries
by
Province
(2018
–
2024)

Province	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Harare	33	1,275	449	1,381	975	145	212
Bulawayo	214	1,345	467	668	841	312	603
Manicaland	532	387	864	788	962	252	322
Mashonaland Central	266	315	323	225	324	181	563
Mashonaland East	96	689	522	420	618	432	640
Mashonaland West	168	702	361	833	2,270	131	530
Matabeleland North	3	181	289	570	619	107	71
Matabeleland South	2	164	341	338	288	97	49
Midlands	5,681	6,537	336	1,006	1,055	161	398
Masvingo	78	3,096	489	586	2,109	319	747
Grand Total	7,073	14,691	4,441	6,815	10,061	2,137	4,135

The
data
shows
the
number
of
beneficiaries
fluctuated
significantly
over
the
years,
peaking
in
2019
before
declining
sharply
in
later
years.

In
2018,
the
bank
reached
7
073
beneficiaries,
followed
by
a
significant
expansion
to
14
691
beneficiaries
in
2019,
the
highest
number
recorded
since
the
institution
was
launched.

However,
the
number
dropped
sharply
in
subsequent
years,
with
4
441
beneficiaries
in
2020,
6
815
in
2021,
and
10
061
in
2022.

The
decline
continued
in
the
most
recent
years,
with
2
137
beneficiaries
in
2023
and
4
135
beneficiaries
in
2024,
highlighting
what
the
committee
described
as
“inconsistent
reach
and
operational
challenges”
affecting
the
bank’s
ability
to
sustain
lending
programmes.

A
breakdown
by
province
shows
Midlands
province
recorded
the
highest
number
of
beneficiaries
in
the
early
years,
particularly
in
2018
and
2019.

In
2018
alone,
Midlands
accounted
for
5
681
beneficiaries,
making
up
the
majority
of
that
year’s
recipients.

The
province
continued
to
record
high
numbers
in
2019
with
6
537
beneficiaries,
before
declining
in
later
years.

Other
provinces
such
as
Masvingo,
Mashonaland
West
and
Manicaland
also
recorded
relatively
high
numbers
during
some
years,
reflecting
sporadic
expansion
of
the
bank’s
lending
programmes.

For
instance,
Masvingo
recorded
3
096
beneficiaries
in
2019,
while
Mashonaland
West
registered
2
270
beneficiaries
in
2022,
one
of
the
highest
provincial
figures
recorded
in
the
dataset.

Urban
provinces
such
as
Harare
and
Bulawayo
had
more
moderate
numbers
throughout
the
period.

Harare
recorded
33
beneficiaries
in
2018,
increasing
to
1
275
in
2019,
before
fluctuating
between
449
and
1
381
beneficiaries
in
subsequent
years.

Bulawayo
followed
a
similar
pattern,
beginning
with
214
beneficiaries
in
2018
and
peaking
at
1
345
in
2019,
before
gradually
declining.

Matabeleland
provinces
generally
recorded
the
lowest
beneficiary
numbers,
particularly
Matabeleland
South
and
Matabeleland
North,
reflecting
broader
challenges
in
reaching
remote
rural
communities.

Matabeleland
South
recorded
only
two
beneficiaries
in
2018,
while
Matabeleland
North
recorded
three
beneficiaries
that
same
year.

The
Zimbabwe
Women’s
Microfinance
Bank
was
established
in
2018
to
promote
financial
inclusion
among
marginalised
women,
particularly
those
in
rural
areas,
young
women
and
women
with
disabilities.

The
bank
provides
small
loans,
group
financing
and
business
development
services
aimed
at
helping
women
establish
income-generating
projects
and
expand
small
enterprises.

It
operates
as
a
deposit-taking
microfinance
institution
licensed
by
the
Reserve
Bank
of
Zimbabwe
and
is
wholly
owned
by
the
Government
through
the
Ministry
of
Women
Affairs,
Community,
Small
and
Medium
Enterprises
Development.

The
institution
was
created
following
decades
of
advocacy
for
a
women-focused
financial
institution.

According
to
the
parliamentary
report,
the
idea
of
establishing
a
women’s
bank
in
Zimbabwe
dates
back
to
1982,
when
policymakers
first
proposed
creating
a
financial
institution
to
address
the
lack
of
credit
access
for
rural
women.

Despite
the
number
of
beneficiaries
reached,
the
parliamentary
committee
found
the
bank
remains
largely
invisible
in
many
rural
communities.

During
consultations
and
field
visits
across
several
provinces,
the
committee
discovered
that
awareness
of
the
bank
was
generally
limited
to
urban
centres
and
central
business
districts.

“During
the
consultations,
the
Committee
noted
that
the
bank’s
visibility
and
accessibility
remained
consistently
low
across
most
districts,”
the
report
said.

 Distribution
Network
of
ZWMB
Branches
in
Zimbabwe

Province	Office Locations
Bulawayo	Bulawayo Branch
Manicaland	Mutare Office, Rusape Office, Chipinge Office
Mashonaland Central	Bindura, Guruve Office
Mashonaland East	Marondera, Chivhu Office, Murehwa
Mashonaland West	Chinhoyi, Karoi, Kadoma
Masvingo	Masvingo Office, Zaka Office, Chiredzi Office, Mwenezi
Matabeleland North	Lupane Office, Binga Office, Nkayi Office
Matabeleland South	Gwanda Office, Beitbridge, Plumtree Office
Midlands	Gweru Office, Gokwe Office, Zvishavane Office

The
committee
noted
many
women
had
only
heard
about
the
bank
through
early
awareness
campaigns
conducted
by
the
Ministry
of
Women
Affairs
between
2018
and
2020,
with
little
follow-up
engagement
afterwards.

In
some
areas,
awareness
of
the
institution
emerged
only
recently.
For
example,
women
in
Mazvihwa
district
in
Zvishavane
reportedly
only
learned
about
the
bank
in
April
2025,
seven
years
after
it
had
been
established.

The
committee
found
approximately
60
percent
of
women
consulted
across
the
visited
provinces
had
no
knowledge
of
the
bank
or
its
services.

Where
awareness
existed,
it
was
often
limited
to
radio
advertisements
that
did
not
clearly
explain
eligibility
criteria
or
the
process
for
accessing
loans.

Physical
access
to
the
bank’s
services
also
remained
a
major
challenge,
particularly
for
women
living
in
rural
districts.

Although
the
bank
has
offices
in
several
provinces,
the
committee
said
most
branches
were
located
in
central
business
districts,
forcing
rural
women
to
travel
long
distances
to
access
services.

For
instance,
women
from
Mwenezi
district
were
required
to
travel
to
Masvingo
town
to
access
banking
services,
sometimes
covering
distances
of
up
to
100
kilometres.

Similarly,
Zvishavane
district
lacked
a
permanent
office,
relying
instead
on
an
intermittent
mobile
agent.

In
Nkayi
and
Chivhu,
the
committee
found
that
services
were
often
provided
by
a
single
officer
without
vehicles
or
motorbikes,
making
it
difficult
to
reach
remote
communities.

The
report
also
highlighted
cases
where
offices
closed
abruptly
without
notice,
leaving
loan
applicants
uncertain
about
the
status
of
their
applications.

“Several
offices,
for
example
Zvishavane,
closed
down
abruptly
without
communication,
leaving
applicants
stranded,”
the
report
said.

Even
in
locations
where
offices
existed,
the
committee
found 
they
were
often
poorly
identified.

“Branches
generally
lacked
adequate
signage,
making
it
difficult
for
the
public
to
know
they
existed,”
the
report
noted.

The
Mutare
branch
was
identified
as
the
only
office
that
was
properly
branded
and
well
presented,
while
other
offices
were
poorly
maintained.

In
Nkayi,
the
committee
observed
that
long
grass
had
grown
around
the
office
building,
obscuring
the
bank’s
only
promotional
banner.

The
committee
concluded
the
bank’s
limited
decentralisation
was
a
major
barrier
to
access,
especially
for
rural
communities.

Many
rural
wards
lacked
the
community
coordinators
meant
to
facilitate
outreach
programmes
and
provide
information
to
women
entrepreneurs.

For
example,
in
Nkayi
district,
12
out
of
19
wards
reportedly
had
no
coordinators,
leaving
large
sections
of
the
population
without
information
about
the
bank’s
services.

Similarly,
communities
such
as
Mataga
and
Mapanzure
in
Zvishavane
and
rural
wards
in
Chivhu
were
not
receiving
consistent
information
or
services
from
the
bank.

Beyond
awareness
challenges,
women
reported
several
obstacles
when
trying
to
access
the
bank’s
services.

These
included
complex
application
procedures,
lengthy
loan
processing
times
and
requirements
for
collateral
or
guarantors
that
many
rural
women
could
not
meet.

Women
also
complained
about
fees
and
transport
costs,
with
some
paying
US$5
to
open
accounts
or
apply
for
loans
without
ever
receiving
funding.

Others
reported
travelling
long
distances
to
collect
approved
loans,
sometimes
from
offices
in
Harare
or
Bulawayo.

The
report
further
highlighted
concerns
over
interest
rates
and
short
repayment
periods,
which
some
women
said
made
it
difficult
to
run
sustainable
businesses.

Despite
these
challenges,
the
parliamentary
committee
acknowledged
the
Zimbabwe
Women’s
Microfinance
Bank
has
played
a
role
in
improving
access
to
finance
for
thousands
of
women.

However,
it
concluded
that
significant
improvements
in
visibility,
decentralisation
and
operational
efficiency
are
necessary
for
the
bank
to
fulfil
its
mandate
of
empowering
women
across
the
country.

Post
published
in:

Business