This
was
disclosed
by
the
Chinese
company
in
charge
of
the
project,
Sichuan
Yahua
Industrial
Group
Co.,
marking
the
third
such
project
in
the
country.
As
seen
on
Bloomberg,
Yahua,
which
operates
the
Kamativi
lithium
mine
in
a
joint
venture
with
Zimbabwe,
announced
Thursday
on
a
Shenzhen
Exchange
platform
that
it
has
commenced
construction
on
a
plant
to
produce
lithium
sulfate.
The
plant
was
led
by
the
largest
lithium
producer
in
Zimbabwe,
Prospect
Lithium Zimbabwe(PLZ),
and
financed
by
Zhejiang
Huayou
Cobalt
Co,
a
Chinese
high-tech
enterprise.
These
developments
are
coming
at
the
same
time,
Zimbabwe
decided
to
halt
the
export
of
lithium
(often
called
white
gold)
and
other
raw
materials.
Zimbabwe’s
plan
to
phase
out
the
export
of
raw
lithium
Lithium
bearing
rock
in
the
open
pit
at
the
Bikita
Minerals
lithium
mine,
operated
by
Sinomine
Resource
Group
Co.,
in
Bikita,
Zimbabwe,
on
Tuesday,
Nov.
19,
2024.
[Cynthia
R
Matonhodze/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images]
Basically,
Zimbabwe
is
in
the
process
of
phasing
out
the
sale
of
raw
materials
and
instituting
the
export
of
a
higher-value
sulfate
product.
The
Southern
African
country’s
mines
ministry,
via
a
statement,
noted
that
“Government
expects
cooperation
of
the
mining
industry
on
this
measure,
which
has
been
taken
in
the
national
interest.”
On
the
Guangzhou
Futures
Exchange,
the
most
traded
lithium
carbonate
contract
jumped
6.07%
to
178,020
yuan
($26,043)
per
metric
ton
as
of
03:30
GMT,
after
earlier
spiking
more
than
9%
to
187,700
yuan.
At
the
time,
the
country’s
Mines
Minister,
Winston
Chitando,
stated
that
such
a
decision
would
only
increase
local
value
addition
in
the
mining
sector.
“With
effect
from
January
2027,
the
export
of
lithium
concentrates
will
no
longer
be
allowed,”
the
minister
said
to
reporters
in
Zimbabwe’s
capital,
Harare.
The
mines
ministry
revealed
that
it
will
realign
export
procedures
because
of
“continued
malpractices
during
the
exportation
of
minerals”
in
the
letter,
obtained
by Reuters on
Wednesday,
that
was
issued
to
Zimbabwe’s
Chamber
of
Mines.
A
series
of
bilateral
health
agreements
being
negotiated
between
African
countries
and
the
administration
of
President
Donald
Trump
have
been
labelled
“clearly
lop-sided”
and
“immoral”
amid
growing
outrage
at
US
demands,
including
countries
being
forced
to
share
biological
resources
and
data.
It
emerged
this
week
that Zimbabwe had
halted
negotiations
with
the
US
for
$350m
(£258m)
of
health
funding,
saying
the
proposals
risked
undermining
its
sovereignty
and
independence.
A
letter
sent
by
Albert
Chimbindi,
Zimbabwe’s
secretary
for
foreign
affairs
and
international
trade,
in
December
that was
made
public said
the
president,
Emmerson
Mnangagwa,
“directed
that
Zimbabwe
must
discontinue
any
negotiation,
with
the
USA,
on
the
clearly
lop-sided
MoU
[memorandum
of
understanding]
that
blatantly
compromises
and
undermines
the
sovereignty
and
independence
of
Zimbabwe
as
a
country”.
Meanwhile, a
deal
with
Zambia –
which
has
been
linked
to
a
separate
agreement
with
the
US
on
“collaboration
in
the
mining
sector”
–
has
yet
to
be
finalised,
with
Asia
Russell,
director
of
the
HIV
advocacy
organisationHealth
Gap, accusing
the
US of
“conditioning
life-saving
health
services
on
plundering
the
mineral
wealth
of
the
country.
It’s
shameless
exploitation,
which
is
immoral.”
At
least 17
African
countries have
signed
deals
with
the
US,
collectively
securing
$11.3bn
in
health
aid
but
raising
concerns
over
concessions
made
in
return.
Critics
say
there
has
been
a
lack
of
consultation
with
the
community
groups
that
provide
a
lot
of
the
healthcare
in
African
countries,
and
have
raised
concerns
over
data
privacy
–
the
US
requests
patient
record
data
as
part
of
the
deals
–
and
the
prioritisation
of
faith-based
healthcare
providers.
In
Nigeria,
US
statements
suggest
the
funding
is
contingent
on
authorities
tackling
what
the
Trump
administration
refers
to
as the
persecution
of
Christians in
the
country.
The
Trump
administration
is
negotiating
the bilateral
agreements with
countries
as
part
of
its
America
First
global
health
strategy.
The
new
approach
follows
the
US
dismantling
what
had
been
the
flagship
aid
body,
USAID,
and
pulling
back
from
large
multilateral
bodies
such
as
the
World
Health
Organization.
A
10-year-old
girl
is
given
the
HPV
vaccine
at
Budiriro
polyclinic
in
Harare,
Zimbabwe. Photograph:
Aaron
Ufumeli/AP
The
rapid
push
for
deals
is being
seen
as
part
of
US
manoeuvres to
establish
and
entrench
power
on
the
continent.
The
deals
also
commit
African
nations
to
rely
on
US
regulatory
approval
of
new
drugs
and
technologies
before
rolling
them
out.
The US-Rwanda
deal is
explicit
that
it
will
bring
increased
US
private
sector
involvement
in
the
country’s
health
sector.
A Zimbabwean
government
spokesperson
said on
Wednesday
that
the
US
had
asked
for
“sensitive
health
data,
including
pathogen
samples”,
but
without
any
corresponding
guarantee
of
access
to
any
resulting
medical
innovations.
“Zimbabwe
was
being
asked
to
share
its
biological
resources
and
data
over
an
extended
period,
with
no
corresponding
guarantee
of
access
to
any
medical
innovations
–
such
as
vaccines,
diagnostics
or
treatments
–
that
might
result
from
that
shared
data,”
he
said.
“In
essence,
our
nation
would
provide
the
raw
materials
for
scientific
discovery
without
any
assurance
that
the
end
products
would
be
accessible
to
our
people
should
a
future
health
crisis
emerge.”
He
said
Zimbabwe
was
also
afraid
bilateral
agreements
would
undermine
WHO
systems
designed
to
ensure
fairness
in
any
future
pandemic
response.
“Development
aid
should
empower
nations,
not
create
dependencies
or
serve
as
a
vehicle
for
strategic
extraction,”
he
said.
“When
financial
assistance
is
contingent
upon
concessions
that
touch
upon
national
security,
data
sovereignty,
or
access
to
strategic
resources,
it
fundamentally
alters
the
nature
of
the
relationship
from
one
of
partnership
to
one
of
unequal
exchange.”
The
US
ambassador
to
Zimbabwe,
Pamela
Tremont, said
on
X she
regretted
the
country’s
decision.
“We
believe
this
collaboration
would
have
delivered
extraordinary
benefits
for
Zimbabwean
communities
–
especially
the
1.2
million
men,
women
and
children
currently
receiving
HIV
treatment
through
US-supported
programmes,”
she
said.
“We
will
now
turn
to
the
difficult
and
regrettable
task
of
winding
down
our
health
assistance
in
Zimbabwe.”
Most
of
the
new
US-African
deals
are
not
publicly
available,
although
the
Guardian
has seen
a
draft
template,
and
a
handful
of
documents
that
appear
to
be
final
agreements
are
in
circulation.
The
five-year
deals
commit
African
countries
to
gradually
provide
a
greater
amount
of
domestic
funding,
including
for
health-worker
salaries
and
equipment
–
replacing
US
investment
which will
decrease
each
year.
If
countries
fail
to
meet
those
commitments,
US
funding
may
be
withdrawn.
US
drafts
also
include
requests
for
access
to
health
data
and
information
on
new
or
emerging
pathogens
for
up
to
25
years,
although
many
countries
appear
to
have
negotiated
shorter
commitments.
In
Kenya,
the
first
country
to
sign
a
deal,
a
court
case
brought
by
campaigners
over
data
sharing
terms
has
put
the
agreement
on
hold.
The
Consumer
Federation
of
Kenya
(Cofek),
one
of
the
groups
bringing
the
case,
said Kenya
risked
“ceding
strategic
control of
its
health
systems
if
pharmaceuticals
for
emerging
diseases
and
digital
infrastructure
(including
cloud-storage
of
raw
data)
are
externally
controlled”.
Uganda’s
attorney
general,
Kiryowa
Kiwanuka,
sought
to
downplay
similar
fears
about
his
country’s
deal
in
an interview
hosted
on
X,
saying
it
was
“not
true”
that
citizens’
health
data
and
privacy
was
at
risk.
“We
have
our
data
protection
and
privacy
law,
and
the
agreement
is
riddled
with
that,”
he
said.
A
headline
reflects
Donald
Trump’s
comments
on
the
persecution
of
Christians
in
Nigeria. Photograph:
Sunday
Alamba/AP
One
reproductive
and
gender
justice
campaigner
in
Uganda
questioned
whether
the
increased
domestic
funding
targets
were
realistic,
given
African
governments’
failure
to
meet
the 2001
Abuja
declaration’s
15%
minimum national
budget
allocation
to
health.
She
said
there
had
been
“no
public
participation”
in
the
negotiation
process,
and
non-governmental
organisations
were
expected
to
be
further
sidelined.
Specialist
clinics
offering
care
to
marginalised
groups
such
as
the
LGBTQ+
community
were
unlikely
to
see
funding
“trickle
down”
to
them,
she
said.
In
Nigeria,
according
to
a US
embassy
statement,
the
agreement
for
$2.1bn
of
US
funding
“places
a
strong
emphasis
on
Christian
faith-based
healthcare
providers”.
US
‘adapt,
shrink
or
die’
terms
for
$2bn
aid
pot
will
mean
UN
bowing
down
to
Washington,
say
experts
Read
more
Fadekemi
Akinfaderin
of
Fòs
Feminista wrote
on
Substack that
“singling
out
one
religious
group
in
a
deeply
plural
country
risks
inflaming
existing
tensions
and
politicising
health”.
She
also
warned
that
“faith-based
facilities
are
less
likely
to
provide
family
planning
services,
STI
prevention
and
some
vaccinations,
due
to
ideological
beliefs”,
urging
Nigeria’s
health
ministry
to
ensure
coverage
gaps
did
not
result
from
the
agreement.
Rachel
Bonnifield,
director
of
global
health
policy
and
senior
fellow
at
the
Center
for
Global
Development
thinktank,
said
that
despite
the
criticisms
there
were
good
reasons
for
countries
to
sign
deals
including
“very
substantial
amounts
of
funding
–
in
some
cases
equivalent
to
50%
or
more
of
governments’
total
domestic
spending
on
health
–
to
support
very
basic
and
much
needed
health
services”.
A
shift
to
government
control
of
health
funds,
rather
than
distribution
through
US
NGOs,
was
also
likely
to
be
attractive,
she
said,
with
the
deals
seen
as
a
chance
to
establish
new,
broader
relationships
with
the
US.
“Even
transactional
negotiations
can
be
seen
as
treating
African
governments
like
peers
and
partners
versus
the
recipients
of
American
charity,”
said
Bonnifield.
The
vacancy
arises
following
the retirement
of
Dr
Narcisius
Dzvanga,
who
concluded
a
long
and
distinguished
career
in
public
service
on
25
December
2025.
His
departure
marked
the
end
of
an
era
for
the
institution,
where
he
served
in
various
leadership
capacities
over
many
years.
According
to
HSC
Vacancy
Circular
No.
6
of
2026,
the
Chief
Medical
Officer
position
is
graded
FL
(1)
and
reports
directly
to
the
Permanent
Secretary
of
the
Health
ministry.
The
successful
candidate
will
be
responsible
for
providing
leadership
and
strategic
vision
to
the
organisation
by
making
sure
there
is
compliance
with
set
standards
and
regulatory
requirements.
Applicants
for
the
post
must
possess
a
Degree
in
Medicine
and
Surgery,
a
Master
of
Medicine
Degree
or
Fellowship
in
a
clinical
area,
a
valid
Specialist
Practicing
Certificate
with
the
Medical
and
Dental
Practitioners
Council
of
Zimbabwe
(MDPCZ),
with
seven
years’
experience
and
at
least
two
years’
working
experience
at
Director
level.
The
critical
competencies
required
include
leadership,
team
coordination,
strategic
planning,
organisational
skills,
review
of
management
plans,
communication
skills,
stakeholder
engagement,
interpersonal
skills,
and
analytical
abilities.
Prospective
candidates
will
be
subjected
to
mandatory
psychometric
tests.
Among
those
expected
to
throw
their
hat
in
the
ring
is
the
current
acting
Chief
Medical
Officer,
Professor
Solwayo
Ngwenya,
who
has
been
at
the
helm
since
Dr
Dzvanga’s
retirement
at
the
end
of
2025.
Prof
Ngwenya,
who
also
serves
as
the
hospital’s
Clinical
Director,
assumed
the
acting
role,
and
has
since
introduced
practical
reforms
to
uplift
professionalism
and
accountability
at
the
hospital.
Sources
within
the
hospital
describe
a
renewed
sense
of
purpose
under
his
stewardship,
with
improvements
in
clinical
governance.
However,
concerns
have
been
raised
that
the
recruitment
drive
is
designed
to
bring
in
junior
candidates,
with
the
minimum
requirement
set
at
just
two
years’
experience
at
director
level.
There
are
claims
that
Prof
Ngwenya
may
once
again
be
overlooked,
with
an
external
candidate
appointed
instead.
This
would
not
be
the
first
time
Prof
Ngwenya
has
been
passed
over
for
the
top
post.
In
2022,
Dr
Dzvanga
was
appointed
CMO
after
serving
as
acting
CMO
at
United
Bulawayo
Hospital
(UBH),
despite
Prof
Ngwenya
having
been
the
institution’s
clinical
director.
Prior
to
that,
Prof
Ngwenya
had
been
elevated
to
acting
CMO
two
years
earlier,
following
the
removal
of
the
then-CMO,
Leonard
Mabhandi.
Meanwhile,
the
Health
Service
Commission
also
released
13
internal
vacancy
circulars
covering
positions
across
the
ministry.
Other
notable
posts
up
for
grabs
include:
Chief
Director,
Public
Health
at
Ministry
Head
Office
–
Requires
an
MBChB
degree,
Master’s
in
Public
Health,
and
at
least
two
years’
experience
as
Director
or
equivalent
Director
Clinical
Services
at
Ingutsheni
Central
Hospital
–
Requires
a
specialist
qualification
in
Psychiatry
with
at
least
two
years’
experience
as
a
Specialist
Head
of
Department
Provincial
Maternal
and
Child
Health
Officers
for
Mashonaland
Central,
Mashonaland
East,
Bulawayo
Metropolitan,
and
Matabeleland
South
Provincial
Epidemiology
and
Disease
Control
Officers
for
Harare
Metropolitan,
Bulawayo
Metropolitan,
Matabeleland
North,
and
Manicaland
District
Medical
Officers
for
Rushinga
(Mashonaland
Central),
Mutawatawa
(Mashonaland
East),
Nkayi
and
Tsholotsho
(Matabeleland
North)
Chief
Pharmacist
at
Sally
Mugabe
Central
Hospital
Deputy
Director
Procurement
at
Parirenyatwa
Group
of
Hospitals
Chief
Accountant
(Expenditure)
and
Chief
Accountant
(Suspense)
at
Head
Office
Director
Internal
Audit
at
Head
Office
Interested
candidates
must
apply
through
the
online
portal
at https://applications.hsc.org.zw/form.php,
attaching
application
letters,
detailed
CVs,
certified
copies
of
certificates,
and
a
copy
of
the
current
Result
Based
Personnel
Performance
Appraisal
Form.
The
applications
close
on
Friday,
6
March
2026.
In
making
recommendations
for
filling
these
posts,
the
Health
Service
Commission
will
only
consider
those
who
apply
in
terms
of
the
circulars
while
shortlisted
candidates
must
bring
original
certificates
when
called
for
interview.
The
application
link
requires
candidates
to
submit
all
documents
in
one
PDF
format.
Failure
to
submit
the
performance
appraisal
report
will
delay
the
promotion
exercise.
Liars
Keep
Losing
In
Court:
Judges
keep
catching
federal
officers
with
their
pants
on
fire.
These
Aren’t
The
Lawyers
You’ve
Been
Looking
For:
OpenAI
helps
shut
down
fake
law
empire.
When
Mardi
Gras
Turns
Violent:
Shia
LeBeouf
gets
hit
with
two
charges
of
battery
and
a
rehab
stint.
This
Should
Scratch
Your
Law
Porn
Itch:
Dean’s
List
is
the
novel
you
didn’t
know
you
needed.
Need
Some
Help
Finding
Loans
For
School?:
AccessLex
Institute
is
here
to
help!
Once,
Twice,
Three
Times
The
Contempt:
The
government
has
had
enough
of
the
government!
Ever
since
I
started
this
column
almost
nine
years
ago,
law
students
have
reached
out
to
me
seeking
advice
on
their
careers.
I
welcome
this
contact,
and
anyone
who
wants
to
ask
my
advice
on
their
plans
or
career
moves
should
feel
free
to
email
me
at
[email protected]. I
recently
heard
from
a
law
student
who
is
nervous
about
the
job
market
since
he
has
not
yet
secured
a
position
after
graduating. This
person
said
he
might
open
up
his
own
practice
if
he
could
not
find
a
job
after
law
school.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
opening
up
a
law
practice
directly
after
law
school
is
not
advisable
and
should
be
avoided
in
most
circumstances.
The
first
point
in
my
career
where
I
considered
opening
up
my
own
law
practice
was
after
I
was
laid
off
in
a
mass
reduction
in
force
about
18
months
after
graduating
from
law
school. I
did
not
want
to
deal
with
job
hunting,
and
I
disliked
all
of
the
administrative
hassles
of
working
at
a
larger
law
firm. However,
I
knew
that
starting
a
law
firm
at
that
point
was
not
the
best
idea,
and
I
waited
another
six
and
half
years
before
opening
up
my
own
shop.
I
knew
I
could
not
open
my
own
practice
earlier
in
my
career
since
I
did
not
have
sufficient
experience
handling
legal
matters.
Law
school
does
a
poor
job
of
teaching
students
the
practical
information
they
need
to
be
practicing
lawyers. Even
Biglaw
lawyers
might
not
have
the
training
at
such
shops
to
open
their
own
practice. Indeed,
when
I
worked
in
Biglaw,
I
mostly
wrote
research
memos
and
conducted
document
reviews,
and
these
tasks
were
not
too
helpful
when
I
opened
my
own
practice.
The
experience
that
was
most
helpful
to
me
was
working
at
an
insurance
defense
firm
for
a
few
years. At
that
shop,
I
had
primary
responsibility
over
dozens
of
cases,
and
I
handled
all
of
the
court
appearances,
motions,
depositions,
and
other
associated
tasks. These
experiences
gave
me
the
confidence
needed
to
open
my
own
shop,
and
I
am
happy
I
waited
until
I
had
a
deep
breadth
of
experience
before
hanging
my
own
shingle.
Monetary
reasons
might
also
keep
law
school
graduates
from
opening
their
own
shop.
Law
firms
are
difficult
to
establish,
and
lawyers
may
not
earn
significant
amounts
of
money
shortly
after
starting
a
law
firm. Indeed,
lawyers
should
expect
that
they
will
not
earn
a
decent
income
for
at
least
a
few
years
after
they
open
their
own
shop. Law
students
often
do
not
have
cash
reserves
they
can
rely
upon
during
tough
financial
times
and
might
have
student
loans
that
can
divert
resources
away
from
establishing
a
practice. It
is
often
best
to
work
at
another
shop
first
where
law
school
graduates
can
earn
consistent
income
and
save
money.
Another
reason
why
starting
a
law
firm
after
graduating
law
school
might
be
difficult
is
sine
people
are
less
likely
to
trust
a
lawyer
who
is
green
and
inexperienced. Clients
usually
like
to
know
that
a
lawyer
has
significant
experience
in
the
practice
of
law
and
has
preferably
handled
matters
like
the
client’s
case
in
the
past. Although
some
law
schools
offer
clinics
that
can
confer
practical
knowledge,
this
type
of
reassurance
can
usually
only
be
had
by
years
of
experience
in
the
practice
of
law. Moreover,
it
is
usually
easier
to
originate
business
when
lawyers
get
a
little
older
since
their
counterparts
are
in
more
senior
positions
at
businesses
and
are
more
able
to
influence
decisions
on
which
lawyer
to
hire.
All
told,
there
may
be
some
situations
in
which
it
makes
sense
to
begin
a
law
firm
shortly
after
graduating
from
law
school. But
in
most
instances,
law
school
graduates
should
work
at
other
shops
for
at
least
several
years
before
opening
their
own
shop.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.
Anytime
there’s
a
merger
or
a
new
entrant
into
the
market,
that
volatility
creates
movement
among
lawyers.
The
reason
is
that
the
merged
firm
may
not
be
the
best
place
for
all
of
the
lawyers
who
were
at
each
of
the
legacy
firms,
but
it
also
means
that
the
merged
firm
might
be
of
interest
to
candidates
who
might
not
have
been
interested
in
either
firm
pre-merger.
— David
Schwartz,
a
partner
with
Major
Lindsey
&
Africa
partner,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
the
number
of
lateral
candidates
available
on
the
market
given
the
spate
of
recent
merger
announcements
among
some
of
the
biggest
of
Biglaw
firms.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
If
you’ve
been
feeling
like
the
federal
student
loan
safety
net
is
shrinking
just
as
tuition
keeps
doing
its
annual
“number
go
up”
routine,
you’re
not
imagining
things.
Recent
federal
policy
changes
have
materially
reshaped
how
graduate
and
professional
students
—
including
law
students
—
can
pay
for
school.
And
yes,
that
means
more
people
are
being
pushed
toward
private
loans,
whether
they
like
it
or
not.
Enter
AccessLex
Institute,
which
this
week
announced
the
launch
of
the
AccessLex
Private
Loan
Exchange,
a
nonprofit-curated
resource
designed
to
help
law
schools
and
students
navigate
the
increasingly
unavoidable
private
loan
market
with
something
approaching
clarity.
AccessLex
is
pitching
the
Exchange
as
a
centralized,
vetted
directory
of
private
and
state-based
education
loan
options
available
to
law
students
—
all
in
one
place,
and
with
fewer
mystery
boxes
than
the
usual
Google-and-panic
approach
to
borrowing.
The
goal,
according
to
the
organization,
is
not
to
sell
loans,
but
to
reduce
confusion
at
a
moment
when
confusion
is
doing
a
lot
of
damage.
According
to
AccessLex,
the
Private
Loan
Exchange
was
developed
directly
in
response
to
feedback
from
financial
aid
administrators,
the
people
who
get
to
explain,
over
and
over
again,
why
the
math
no
longer
works
the
way
it
used
to.
The
Exchange
pulls
together
loan
offerings
from
a
range
of
lenders
into
a
single,
navigable
webpage
that
schools
can
point
students
to
without
feeling
like
they’re
endorsing
a
particular
bank.
“Our
role
has
always
been
to
reduce
friction
and
uncertainty
around
how
students
pay
for
law
school,”
said
Chris
Chapman,
President
and
CEO
of
AccessLex
Institute.
“The
AccessLex
Private
Loan
Exchange
reflects
our
commitment
to
providing
objective,
consistently
sourced
information
that
helps
borrowers
compare
options
with
confidence
and
make
informed
decisions
about
financing
their
legal
education.”
Zooming
out,
the
launch
feels
less
like
a
flashy
new
initiative
and
more
like
a
sober
acknowledgment
of
where
things
are
headed.
The
Private
Loan
Exchange
doesn’t
fix
the
underlying
problem,
that
law
school
financing
is
getting
more
precarious,
but
it
does
recognize
reality.
And
in
the
current
student
loan
landscape,
reality-based
tools
are
about
as
good
as
it
gets.
It’s
not
every
day
that
a
federal
judge
threatens
to
hold
the
US
government
in
contempt.
But
yesterday
it
happened
three
times.
“The
Court
is
not
aware
of
another
occasion
in
the
history
of
the
United
States
in
which
a
federal
court
has
had
to
threaten
contempt—again
and
again
and
again—to
force
the
United
States
government
to
comply
with
court
orders,”
wrote
Chief
Judge
Patrick
Schiltz
of
the
District
of
Minnesota,
adding
ominously
that
“This
Court
will
continue
to
do
whatever
is
required
to
protect
the
rule
of
law,
including,
if
necessary,
moving
to
the
use
of
criminal
contempt.”
The
proximate
cause
of
this
chaos
is
an
ICE
memo
issued
in
July
which
wrenched
a
clause
out
of
8
U.S.C.
§
1225(b)
to
justify
mandatory
detention
of
virtually
every
immigrant
without
permanent
legal
residence.
In
reality,
the
statute
deals
with
asylum
seekers
at
the
border,
who
can
be
detained
for
up
to
nine
days
pending
a
credible
fear
hearing.
But
DHS
is
using
it
to
justify
arresting
people
who
were
paroled
into
the
country
years,
or
even
decades,
ago
and
interning
them
indefinitely.
Outside
the
Fifth
Circuit,
judges
have
uniformly
rejected
this
contrived
interpretation.
But
ICE
continues
to
snatch
up
longterm
residents
and
intern
them,
provoking
an
avalanche
of
habeas
cases
which
have
to
be
dealt
with
immediately.
This
is
stretching
US
Attorney’s
Offices
past
the
breaking
point,
and
they
were
already
short-staffed
because
working
for
Pam
Bondi
sucks.
To
make
matters
worse,
ICE
keeps
doing
horrible
shit
when
judges
inevitably
grant
the
habeas
petitions.
There’s
a
reason
grants
now
include
instructions
to
release
the
petitioner
in
his
home
town,
with
all
his
belongings
(particularly
his
winter
coat
and
ID),
and
with
no
additional
restrictions
on
his
liberty
(like
an
ankle
monitor).
And
on
top
of
this,
ICE
routinely
disregards
court
orders
entirely.
A
month
ago,
Judge
Schiltz
published
a
list
of
96
orders
violated
in
his
district
in
January
alone.
Apparently
this
offended
the
US
Attorney
for
Minnesota,
Daniel
Rosen,
who
took
issue
with
Judge
Schiltz’s
math
and
wrote
to
him,
saying
“your
order
was
far
beyond
the
pale
of
accuracy
for
an
order
that
would
be
wielded
so
publicly
and
so
sharply.
The
lawyers
in
my
civil
division
didn’t
deserve
it.”
This
was
a
bold
move
just
days
after
a
JAG
lawyer
seconded
to
Rosen’s
office
as
a
special
assistant
US
Attorney
got
held
in
contempt
for
blowing
off
an
entire
habeas
case
and
failing
to
even
enter
an
appearance.
“The
judges
of
this
District
have
been
extraordinarily
patient
with
the
government
attorneys,
recognizing
that
they
have
been
put
in
an
impossible
position
by
Rosen
and
his
superiors
in
the
Department
of
Justice,”
Judge
Schiltz
fumed.
“What
those
attorneys
‘didn’t
deserve’
was
the
Administration
sending
3000
ICE
agents
to
Minnesota
to
detain
people
without
making
any
provision
for
handling
the
hundreds
of
lawsuits
that
were
sure
to
follow.”
Then
he
attached
another
list
of
113
more
violations
this
month.
And
he’s
not
the
only
one
preparing
to
make
it
very
unpleasant
for
supervising
lawyers
when
ICE
flips
judges
the
bird.
Judge
Jeffrey
Bryan,
also
in
Minnesota,
ordered
Rosen
and
David
Fuller,
chief
of
the
Civil
Division
in
Minnesota,
to
show
up
for
a
contempt
hearing
on
Tuesday
along
with
someone
from
ICE
“who
had
notice
of
the
Court’s
previous
Orders
in
each
of
the
above-captioned
cases
concerning
return
of
property
and
documentation
of
that
fact,
and
was
(or
were)
directly
or
indirectly
responsible
for
Petitioners’
custody,
transportation,
and
release.”
They
can
explain
under
oath
why
28
habeas
petitioners
haven’t
gotten
their
“personal
belongings
such
as
cash,
cellphones,
jewelry,
driver’s
licenses,
work
permits,
passports,
clothing,
and
other
identification
and
immigration
documents”
returned.
And
in
New
Jersey,
things
aren’t
going
much
better.
After
granting
the
habeas
petition
of
a
Salvadoran
woman
who’d
been
paroled
into
the
country
in
2016
and
then
picked
up
last
month,
Judge
Zahid
Quraishi
called
the
government’s
continued
reliance
on
its
crackpot
interpretation
of
§
1225(b)
“manifest
recklessness.”
“The
undersigned
will
not
stand
idly
by
and
allow
this
intentional
misconduct
to
go
on.
It
ends
today,”
he
warned.
“The
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
and
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
are
cautioned
that
further
arrests
and
detentions
under
§
1225(b)
that
come
before
the
undersigned
will
likely
trigger
the
issuance
of
an
Order
to
Show
Cause
and
the
scheduling
of
an
in-person
hearing
requiring
individuals
with
personal
knowledge
from
the
Office
and
the
Department
to
testify
under
oath
as
to
the
specific
facts
and
legal
positions
associated
with
the
detention
at
issue.”
Clearly
things
are
coming
to
a
head
between
the
judiciary
and
the
Trump
administration.
Either
DOJ
is
going
to
get
control
over
its
client,
or
US
Attorneys
are
going
to
have
to
start
coming
to
court
with
a
toothbrush.
That
will
hardly
make
it
easier
for
DOJ
to
recruit
prosecutors.
But
at
least
Kristi
Noem
will
get
to
preside
over
a
national
network
of
concentration
camps.
In
a
pastoral
statement
issued
on
Friday,
the
Zimbabwe
Heads
of
Christian
Denominations
(ZHOCD)
said
the
proposed
amendments
raise
serious
moral
and
constitutional
concerns,
particularly
given
their
far-reaching
impact
and
the
absence
of
a
referendum.
The
church
leaders
expressed
concern
over
provisions
that
would
extend
presidential
and
parliamentary
terms
without
a
fresh
electoral
mandate,
remove
direct
presidential
elections,
and
restructure
the
Senate
in
a
way
they
say
could
entrench
incumbent
dominance.
They
also
warned
that
the
changes
would
weaken
the
independence
of
electoral
and
oversight
institutions.
Further
concerns
were
raised
about
increased
executive
influence
over
the
judiciary
and
prosecution
services,
the
dilution
of
key
independent
commissions,
and
the
politicisation
of
traditional
leadership.
“Taken
together,
these
amendments
narrow
the
people’s
voice
in
governance
and
concentrate
power
in
ways
incompatible
with
the
Constitution’s
spirit,”
the
statement
said.
ZHOCD
argued
that
limiting
citizen
participation
heightens
the
risk
of
instability
and
undermines
constitutional
democracy.
The
church
leaders
reminded
legislators
that
their
oath
of
office
binds
them
to
uphold
both
the
Constitution
and
the
will
of
the
people.
“Parliament
is
a
sacred
trust,
intended
to
serve
the
collective
good
rather
than
as
a
mechanism
for
the
extension
of
power,”
they
said,
urging
Members
of
Parliament
to
choose
principle
over
expedience
and
to
decline
to
endorse
the
amendments.
The
religious
body
also
appealed
directly
to
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
not
to
support
constitutional
changes
that
would
undermine
term
limits
or
bypass
the
will
of
the
electorate.
“To
proceed
with
amendments
that
would
effectively
bypass
these
term
limits
would
deeply
wound
the
nation’s
trust,”
the
statement
said.
Addressing
citizens,
the
church
leaders
called
for
prayer,
peaceful
engagement
and
respectful
dialogue
with
elected
representatives.
They
encouraged
Zimbabweans
to
write
to
and
meet
their
MPs,
using
lawful
civic
platforms
to
express
concerns
grounded
in
justice
and
love.
ZHOCD
said
it
would
continue
engaging
the
President
and
other
stakeholders
in
a
spirit
of
national
healing,
civic
education
and
non-partisan
advocacy,
pledging
sustained
support
for
constitutional
democracy
and
development
anchored
in
the
rule
of
law
and
citizen
participation.
