Reflections: Celebrate Yourself !

This International Women's Month has seen me reflecting on a lot of things and reminiscing about the days I used to blog a lot about hashtag#mylifeandlaw and so many articles I used to write. Today, a colleague passed by my desk and was talking about the Mazowe Tollgate Relocation and how this would make my life easier since I use that road on a daily basis and had been quite vocal about it's effect on us. It then got me to reflect on how instrumental I was in the petition for the relocation of the tollgate - in fact, I drafted the first petition for the relocation of the Mazowe-Eskbank Tollgate on the 28th of March 2024. This had been after several neighbours and friends had also nudged me to do something about this as we were suffering with having to pay tollgate fees twice a day without exemption yet we are just 39km away from Harare. I engaged the Mazowe Low Density WhatsApp Group on 28 March 2024 with the petition I had drafted requesting for input and this was also distributed to several other groups within the area.

After circulation of the document, Mazowe residents assisted with valuable contributions and insights which we used to perfect the document. Special mention goes to Valentine Masaiti, Advocate Garie Sithole, Jonathan Chideme and others. To be honest it was not an easy road and finally on the 15th of April 2024 we had a final document which was printed and distributed to main areas within Mazowe. I have attached the petition here so that it may also assist other people who may find themselves in the same situation. We created a Facebook page and published the petition online as well. Valentine Masaiti and I stayed up at night on 15 May 2024 stapling and sorting additional petitions for Jonathan to pick up and distribute and I remember we were chatting until 10pm to ensure that all the petitions were in the correct envelopes. Jonathan collected the petitions early morning and delivered to several councillors within our wards, to the various Ministers within Mazowe and even the President. It was a lot of work! Mazowe residents chipped in to assist in any way they could and attended the various town halls and meetings which were called on this.

So imagine my happiness when on the 17th of March 2025 (a year later), I was advised that there was General Notice 350 of 2025 Notice of Relocation of Eskbank (Mazowe) Tollgate. To say I was happy would be an understatement! Our collective efforts have finally paid off. As a woman, I was instrumental in this change and I am so proud! As women, we are special and get things done. I can say I have been a community leader and have impacted communities. hashtag#communityactivism hashtag#internationalwomen'smonth hashtag#servingcommunities.

This is also a reminder for women to celebrate themselves and their achievements because they matter! Do not dim your light , you have earned the bragging rights :)

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vimtavaziva_mazowe-tollgate-petition-activity-7308798542314192896-e4wl?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAqrEgEBuarLMHKqT-CQmm4WCUEQxUHhYbM

It's been a minute!!

 Hi Guys,

It has been a minute and your girl has been a bit AWOL because of my Master's degree which I have been pursuing (hoping to be done this June), work (your girl moved into the corporate sector) and general life hussles. I hope to be back a bit more and to post more on my life and law.

Ciao!

My Life and Law

TRIAL BY THE ELITE

Good day,

It has been a while ever since  I have blogged but trust me the law is still my life and I am still focused on giving my piece of my mind.

Unfortunately my latest article is too long and thus I have put it on my Linkedin and you can dive in on the following link:

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/1HBrcV8QCsM0Aq

xoxo

OF FICTITIOUS CASES AND REAL JUDGMENTS :MY OPINION ON THE SPELUNCEAN CASE BY LON FULLER

It has been a while since I have written something but that is not because the highly opinionated Queen Ms Vee has lost her opinions. On the contrary , I have so much to say fellow law lovers. I have been most fortunate to have come across THE SPELUNCEAN CASE which was written by Lon Fuller. The facts of the case are as follows:

Five cave explorers were caught underground after the tunnel collapsed.  They learned through radio contact that the rescuers were at least ten days away, and that they could not survive that long without food.  They further learned that they could survive if they were to eat one from among them.  They radioed to the outside to ask whether it would be legally and/or morally permissible to kill one among them to sustain the others, but no one above ground would answer the question.  One of the explorers, Whetmore, suggested that they throw dice to determine who should be eaten, and they all agree.  Just before the dice were thrown, Whetmore suggested that they wait until they are closer to death before proceeding; but he was outvoted, and a die is cast on his behalf.  Everyone, including Whetmore, agreed that the dice where thrown fairly.  Whetmore lost. 

When the rescuers finally reached the explorers, they found that Whetmore had been killed and eaten. The remaining explorers were put on trial for murder under the jurisdictions statute, "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death."  They were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. 

ON APPEAL THE JUDGES HELD THAT:

Chief Justice Truepenny: Would affirm the conviction and sentence.  The murder statute obviously applies to the defendants' conduct, and it is not within the Court's province to ignore the statute.  The executive may provide clemency.  Indeed, given the facts of the case, the executive is likely to provide clemency, and the Court should formally encourage the executive to do so.

Justice Foster: Would reverse.  The statute is inapplicable for two reasons.  First, once the explorers were cut off from society, they returned to a state of nature, and society's laws did not apply to them.  Alternatively, the purpose of the statute would not be served by applying it in this case.  (Read the article for the complete argument.)

Justice Tatting: Would recuse.  The statute clearly applies, but he could not live with himself if he voted to affirm because the result would be evil.  Therefore, he recuses.

Justice Keen: Would affirm.  It is not the judge's role to tell the executive what to do (contra Truepenny), other than to offer her opinion as a private citizen.  It is also not the judge's role to determine whether the explorers' actions were "good" or "bad," or whether the statute is good or bad policy.  The judge's role is to apply the statute, which very clearly applies on its own terms to this case.

Justice Handy: Would reverse.  The statute clearly applies, but the judge must exercise common sense.  Further, public opinion overwhelmingly supports reversal, and it is clear (contra Truepenny) that the executive will not grant clemency.  Therefore, it falls to the court.

NOW I WOULD ALSO WANT TO GIVE MY OWN JUDGEMENT AS "TAVAZIVA J":

TAVAZIVA J: Fiat iustitia ruat cælum! That is the expression that comes to my mind as I read the opinions rendered by my learned brothers. The Latin maxim means “LET JUSTICE BE DONE THOUGH THE HEAVENS MAY FALL”. Before I give my own opinion, I will begin by analyzing the opinions just rendered by my brothers pertaining to this case.

Firstly, like my brother Foster, the sentiments expressed by the Chief Justice in his judgment indeed induce a sense of shock and leave me utterly speechless. The wording of the statute is indeed clear "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death." N. C. S. A. (N. S.) § 12-A. For the Chief Justice to even suggest that we must let our sympathies come into play shocks me to the core. As judges, our duty is merely to do that which the law states without letting our emotions take a hold of us.  As such I do agree with the Chief Justice when he states that this statute permits of no exception but I differ with him whereby he petitions us to join hands in making a petition to the Chief Executive as it is clear what we must do. We ought to follow the letter of the statutes without hesitation as the statute is clear and unambiguous.

While reading the opinion of my brother Foster, I must admit, I thought my brother was suffering from hallucinations and delusions. I associate myself with the views of my brother Tatting who correctly observes that Foster’s judgment is marred with contradictions and fallacies. My brother Tatting accurately brings out the difficulties that Foster’s approach brings. Instead of solving the problem at hand, the approach leaves a lot to be desired. Foster argues that; “I believe something more is on trial in this case than the fate of these unfortunate explorers; that is the law of our Commonwealth. If this Court declares that under our law these men have committed a crime, then our law is itself convicted in the tribunal of common sense, no matter what happens to the individuals involved in this petition of error. For us to assert that the law we uphold and expound compels us to a conclusion we are ashamed of, and from which we can only escape by appealing to a dispensation resting within the personal whim of the Executive, seems to me to amount to an admission that the law of this Commonwealth no longer pretends to incorporate justice.” The law is clear and I do not know how my brother Foster is getting it all wrong. Which tribunal of common sense is he talking about? Was he sworn in to uphold the tribunal of common sense?

Indeed, what is that which is called common sense? Is this common sense he talks of common to all people? How do we ascertain this common sense exactly? The law should be certain and where certainty lacks, that law is unsound and it is indeed a high sounding nothing. As justices of Newgarth , we ought to uphold that law which is ascertainable and in this instance the law is clear and unambiguous and must be followed to the dot. Foster argues that as judges we must be able to “read between the lines” just the way servants do. Well , well ,well if we as judges are being asked to read between the lines and actually come up with the will of the legislature, did the Explorers not read between the lines also when Whetmore withdrew from the casting of the lots? They should have read between the lines and should also have seen what Whetmore had eventually realized: An act of murder is abhorrent and ghastly and cannot be justified in any way. These men acted willfully and in a premeditated manner. Let’s take for example the case of a man and a woman who are undergoing courtship. The man asks the woman for coitus and she agrees. Later as they are undressing she changes her mind and tells him to stop and screams “NO”. The man ignores her protests shouting “ The lady doth protest too much” and has intercourse with her against her own will. Is that not rape? Can this man plead that it was necessary for him to have intercourse with the lady as she had aroused him? Can he plead that he was starving from the need to have sexual intercourse (alas hunger comes in different forms!)? Alas, he cannot! It is still rape no matter what this man might plead. alternatively , if the lady in question was an underage minor and willingly consented to sexual intercourse with a man who has attained the age of majority, our Newgarth Legal Age of Majority Act states that such a man is guilty of rape and he still gets convicted. What more of men who killed one of their own in cold blood? Surely these men should be convicted. Clearly a murder has been committed. Clearly the law has been broken . It is clear which path this bench must take. The road is clear and there are no stumbling blocks: these men’s conviction should be upheld as per the letter of the statute.

My brother Tatting says “In the discharge of my duties as a justice of this Court, I am usually able to dissociate the emotional and intellectual sides of my reactions, and to decide the case before me entirely on the basis of the latter. In passing on this tragic case I find that my usual resources fail me. On the emotional side I find myself torn between sympathy for these men and a feeling of abhorrence and disgust at the monstrous act they committed. I had hoped that I would be able to put these contradictory emotions to one side as irrelevant, and to decide the case on the basis of a convincing and logical demonstration of the result demanded by our law. Unfortunately, this deliverance has not been vouchsafed me.” It seems to me that my brother has forgotten the sacred vows he made to uphold the laws of this land and also his duty as a judge .To me(and indeed as it should be to every judge), a judge is justice personified. It has been stated that:”The way in which a judge conceives his judicial role is the most significant factor in the whole judicial process[1].” A judge should thus exercise judicial temperament by being neutral , respectful and composed[2].

My brother seems to forget that judges should be impartial: Judges should set aside their personal dispositions, be neutral, dispassionate and should mete out justice in a manner reminiscent of Lady Justice. Lady Justice is a symbol to us all who sit on the bench on what justice should be like. Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold which represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity.  Hence , we should not concern ourselves with what the public wants or what we feel in our hearts. In her left hand, Lady Justice holds balance scales which represent the weighing of evidence meaning that evidence must be weighed on its own merit. In her right hand, Lady Justice is seen to have a sword that faces downward which represents punishment. Justice should be done and should be seen to be done by all. And if the law appears unjust , we should remember that there is no such thing as an unjust law. The law should be applied to everyone in the same manner with no fear, favor or bias. As such , I believe that my brother ,Tatting has acted in a cowardly manner and has failed to uphold the laws of this country which he swore to uphold at whatever cost. What he has done can be contrasted with a secret service agent who fails to protect the President of the country as he has sworn to do but rather tries to put the blame on terrorists or somebody else. In this instance, the fact still remains that the agent has failed his duty no matter how much he tries to justify his failure. The stench simply does not go away. My brother Tatting forgets that justice should be done though the heavens may fall.

I am in agreement with the case of Commonwealth v. Valjean whereby the Defendant was indicted for the larceny of a loaf of bread, and offered as a defense that he was in a condition approaching starvation. The court rejected this defense. My brother Tatting makes a correct observation whereby he asks: “If hunger cannot justify the theft of wholesome and natural food, how can it justify the killing and eating of a man?” Indeed , I am of the view that a man’s life is so sacrosanct that it should not be interfered with. No man has the power to play God , especially the common ordinary man who has not been sworn to the bench like I am. Moreso , no man’s life should be held to be dearer than another person’s life. In the Alexander Holmes’[3] trial, it was held that self preservation is not always a defense to homicide. A case in point which also helps clear things for the judiciary is the thought experiment of the “Plank of Carneades” which was first proposed by Carneades of Cyrene[4]. The experiment explores concept of self-defense in relation to murder by using a hypothetical case of two shipwrecked sailors, namely, A and B who see and swim towards a plank that can only support one of them. Sailor A gets to the plank first but Sailor B (anticipating that he is going to drown) pushes A off and away from the plank causing A to drown (the causal link). Sailor B gets on the plank and is later saved by a rescue team. The thought experiment poses the question of whether Sailor B can be tried for murder because if B had to kill A in order to live, then it would arguably be in self-defense. In the same breath, if Sailor B had killed A  willfully and for the purposes of self preservation , the same should be termed murder.

My brother Keen , I am afraid is the only one who understands that the law should be applied as it is. I associate myself with Keen’s judgment that the conviction should be upheld and agree with his reasoning. Moral considerations are indeed irrelevant in applying this statute. One must not forget that law is law , its goodness or badness is another  , and so is its morality.  Morality has no place in the world of the law. In fact , whose morality  would we be talking about? The positivist theory , which is indeed the bedrock of Newgarth laws and is our prevailing doctrine , “says law is law, regardless of its moral content and regardless of whether it is just or unjust. The positivist theory distinguishes law as it is from law as it ought to be. There is, therefore, such a thing as an unjust law, a bad law, an immoral law, and so on[5].” Hahlo and Kahn go a step further arguing that ;”The next question we have to answer is: what distinguishes the law of the lawyer … from other practical laws, such as moral law, the laws of etiquette or the laws of cricket? The answer is that law in the strict sense is the only body of rules governing human conduct that is recognized as binding by the state and, if necessary, enforced.[6]” In this case the law of Newgarth with regards to murder should be enforced whether it is just or unjust. So even if justice is not seen to be done in this case, the law should be applied but I am convinced that in this case upholding the conviction of these men is justice indeed.

My brother , Handy, in his opening statement asserts that ;”I have listened with amazement to the tortured ratiocinations to which this simple case has given rise. “Unfortunately, my brother evokes the same reaction from me when he delivers his opinion which leaves me in utter amazement. I am as pale as a corpse as my brother Handy argues that this court should take account of public opinion (apparently 90% of the public wants these men to be released) and also states on record (without any shame , I must add) that he has heard rumors that the Chief Executive will not commute the sentence despite strong opinion. I must confess that I nearly fell off my chair as I listened to my brother judge uttering such nonsense.  Being a judge is not a popularity contest and my brother , Handy should not use this forum to gain popularity. A judge must be willing to hand out judgments that can spark public outrage as long as is upholding the law he was sworn to protect. The court’s duty is not to please the public . The court’s duty is to the law and to the law alone : it is the sworn duty of every judge to apply the law, whatever he or she may think of the law[7]. To the public , it might seem like justice is not being done in this case but it should be understood that  ;” Admittedly law and justice do not always coincide. Examples of oppressive and unjust laws can be found in many countries. But this does not mean that the courts, which are sworn to uphold the law can ever allow their personal, subjective view of what constitutes justice to override the clear provisions of the law[8].”

I have come to the conclusion that these men willfully committed the murder of Whetmore beyond a reasonable doubt. In Bristow v. Commonwealth[9] the court held that "… a man must be taken to intend that which he does, or which is the immediate or necessary consequence of his act,". The same position was reinforced in the case of State v. Saunders[10] where it was held that if the act is dangerous and indicates a disregard of human life causing the death of another, the act is murder even though he didn't intend to kill. There is no dispute then as to whether these men murdered Whetmore or not. They committed the heinous crime and in such circumstances the law must be applied. I believe that all the three requirements for criminal proceedings set out in Commonwealth v. Kravitz 400 Pa. 198 (1960)[11]  were satisfied at the trial court as I have perused the record.  The Kravitz case, supra, quoted the leading case  of Commonwealth v. Gardner wherein the court held that: `In all criminal proceedings it is incumbent on the Commonwealth to establish beyond a reasonable doubt three elements: (1) the occurrence of an injury or loss, in homicide, a person deceased; (2) a criminal agency, in homicide, for example, that the death was caused by a beating, gunshot or circumstances indicating a felonious act (these two combined show a crime has been committed by someone); (3) that the defendant is the responsible party.” The court in this case further referred to the case of Commonwealth v. Bausewine whereby the court held that  facts and circumstances proved (in a criminal case) must, “in order to warrant a conviction, be such as to establish the guilt of the defendant, not . . . as being absolutely incompatible with his innocence, but at least beyond a reasonable doubt." This statement of the law was repeated in Commonwealth v. LaRue and Commonwealth v. Rogozinski.

In making my decision , I have had occasion to go through the case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC which is a leading English criminal case that established a precedent, throughout the common law world, that necessity is not a defense to a charge of murder. It concerned survival cannibalism following a shipwreck  whereby Dudley and Stephens killed and ate a young boy for food. The court held that necessity was not a defense to a charge of murder and I am of the view that the same reasoning should apply to this case. If necessity is indeed a defense to murder, then a woman who kills her abusive husband should be absolved of the crime of murder. If we take necessity as a defense, then surely everyone can conjure up their own meaning of the word. To save us all the trouble, if we were to take the opinions of my brothers Foster and Handy, we might as well just declare that Newgarth is now a lawless jungle.

It is my opinion, that this act of murder is so odious that nothing may justify/ support it. I am firmly convinced that it is not legal neither is it right to kill a fellow human being. It is clear that a murder has been committed. I therefore conclude that the conviction should be affirmed.

---

[1] Flango VE : Judicial Roles for Modern Court : http://www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/future-trends-2013/

[2] ibid

[3] Christianson, Stephen. "Alexander Holmes Trial: 1842." Great American Trials. 2002. Encyclopedia.com. 10 Aug. 2016<http://www.encyclopedia.com>; see also U.S. v. Holmes (1842) 1 26 Fed. Cas. 360

[4] Encyclopedia.com

[5] Madhuku L : An Introduction to Zimbabwean , Weaver Press, 2010 at Page 2

[6] Note 3

[7] Note 3 at page 6

[8] Ebrahim JA in Minister of Lands & Ors v Commercial Farmers Union as quoted in State v Collop 1981 (1) SA 150 (AD), . 161

[9] As quoted in Robert A. Hendel: Criminal Law - Murder - Proof of Malice. Biddle v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 14 (1965) William & Mary Law Review; Volume 7 | Issue 2 Article 19; http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr

[10] State v. Saunders, 108 W.Va. 148, 150 S.E. 519 (1929). Quoted in supra note 9

[11] Law.justia.com/annotations

Of tricky law questions and me

Law is a pretty voluminous subject and has various branches which one is expected to be well versed in. This article will look at some of the most common law phrases / questions and explain them
What is the difference between an action and an application?
Firstly the difference lies in the fact that the law specifically states which proceedings may be brought by way of action or application. For example an application for registration as a legal practitioner is by way of application whereas a lawsuit for damages or divorce is expressly restricted to action by our law.
The second difference is that where the law is silent on whether one should proceed by way of application or action, one should look at whether a material dispute of fact is likely to arise. Where there are material disputes of fact , one should proceed by way of action so that these disputes can be resolved at a trial. Where there is a settled position as to what the facts are , one should proceed by way of application for the court to adjudicate on the dispute of law.
If one proceeds using the wrong procedure the court can
√dismiss the lawsuit with costs
√order that the matter be referred to trial

What is a trial within a trial ?
This is an aspect in the law of evidence . A case in point whereby such a scenario may arise is during a criminal trial whereby an accused person may argue that his warned and cautioned statement was obtained by the police under duress. The court will thus conduct a "trial within a trial" ,that is , an inquiry to find out if the accused's arguments are correct and to find out if the evidence is thus admissible .

What are the requirements for an interdict ?
Firstly an interdict is an order that prohibits somebody from doing something unlawful
There are two types of interdicts : final and temporary

Requirements for a temporary interdict : lessons drawn from setlogelo v setlogelo 1914 AD 221 (for a summary of the case follow this link manswers-su-5-property-law - WordPress.com)
√applicant must prove a prima facie right
√a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm
√there must be no other remedy available to the applicant
√the balance of convenience
Requirements for a final interdict
√a clear right
√ reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm
√no other remedy available

What are the requirements for spoliation : lessons drawn from the Nino Bonino v De Lange case
√peaceful and undistributed possession
√wrongful or unlawful possession

The rationale for spoliation is that no person should take the law into his own hands and should not unlawfully dispossess another of peaceful and undisturbed possession even if the thing belongs to you.

Xoxo

Many more tricky law questions and answers coming up

Ms Vee

IMMIGRATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

THE  WORLD AS WE KNOW IT HAS INDEED BECOME A GLOBAL VILLAGE. PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TRAVELLING TO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES IN SEARCH OF GREENER PASTURES OR JUST TO RELOCATE. WHEN GOING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY ONE SHOULD CHECK THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT COUNTRY. ONE MIGHT NEED A VISA, A WORK PERMIT OR A STUDY PERMIT. FOR COUNTRIES IN THE SADC  OR IN THE EUROPEAN UNION THERE ARE NO VISA REQUIREMENTS NEEDED WHEN ONE GOES TO A COUNTRY WITHIN THEIR REGION. A CASE IN POINT IS THE SADC SITUATION WHEREBY A CITIZEN OF ZIMBABWE CAN VISIT SOUTH AFRICA, TANZANIA, NAMIBIA, MOZAMBIQUE OR MALAWI WITHOUT REQUIRING A VISA. HOWEVER ONE NEEDS TO BE IN POSESSION OF A VALID PASSPORT OR AN EMERGENCY TRAVEL DOCUMENT TO ENTER THESE COUNTRIES. AT THE BORDER POSTS, ONE IS GIVEN SPECIFIC DAYS WHICH HE OR SHE CAN SPEND IN THE COUNTRY. IF A PERSON EXCEEDS THESE DAYS ONE WOULD HAVE BREACHED IMMIGRATION LAWS AND WILL BE LIABLE TO A FINE . FOR EXAMPLE IF SOMEONE EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF DAYS WRITTEN IN THEIR PASSPORT IN SOUTH AFRICA , THEY WILL BE LIABLE TO A FINE OF R3000 OR $251 . IF ONE WANTS TO STUDY OR WORK , FOR EXAMPLE, IN SOUTH AFRICA , ONE HAS TO APPLY FOR THE SUITABLE PERMIT AT A SOUTH AFRICAN EMBASSY IN THEIR COUNTRY. IN ZIMBABWE , MOST EMBASSIES CAN BE FOUND IN MOUNT PLEASANT.

BEFORE TRAVELLING TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY , ONE SHOULD MAKE SURE THEY HAVE:

1  THE PROPER DOCUMENTS FOR TRAVELLING (PASSPORT, VISA, PERMIT ETC)

2   ENOUGH MONEY TO USE FOR  THE DURATION OF THEIR STAY

3   A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE SO THAT THEY DONT FALL PREY TO THIEVES

4  ADEQUATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PLACE THEY ARE TRAVELLING TO

5  EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS

I HOPE YOU WILL FIND THIS USEFUL.

XOXO

MS VEE

me and self determination in public international law

Under public international law or national law for that matter , the right of people to self determination is universally acknowledged. Self determination is the right of people to determine their own fate, to determine which government they want to see in place and generally the people's freedom to determine their own freedom. In as much as this right is recognized , it is a contentious principle because some countries refuse to acknowledge self determination on the parts of some states. There are various partially recognized states in the domain of public international law which i shall discuss below. So then what is the point of recognizing the right of self determination when various countries refuse to acknowledge other states who freely choose their own political status? The following case studies will show the disputed territories and partially recognized states in the world.

THE STATE OF PALESTINE

The State of Palestine declared its independence in 1988 and it claims the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem as its territory. This has caused conflicts with Israel and most of the areas claimed by Palestine are occupied by Israel . The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for a long time now and the conflicts border around Palestinian freedom of movement , Jerusalem and also border issues among other things.However the declaration of independence by Palestine was recognized by the United Nations General Assembly and other countries such as Sweden. Some countries do not recognize the state of Palestine although it determined its own sovereignty . This shows that some countries simply do not recognize other states' self determination for political reasons.

KOSOVO

Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in 2008 and is also a partially recognized state. Serbia does not recognize the independence of Kosovo along with other countries. It is also not a member of the United Nations and lacks diplomatic recognition from 85 UN members. Russia has strongly opposed Kosovo's declaration of independence but has supported South Ossetia and Abkhazia's independence showing double standards. America has also done the same by supporting Kosovo but not recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia's independence.

 KATANGA  V ZAIRE

The Katanga people wanted to secede from Zaire but its secession rejected on the  basis that secession would violate Zaire's territorial intergrity and sovereignty.

REFERENCE RE SECESSION OF QUEBEC

Quebec wanted to secede from Canada and sought an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada which held that unilateral secession under Canadian law was not legal but if a referendum decided in favour of Quebec's independence there would be no basis for refusing its independence.

SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKHAZIA

These two states successfully seceded from Georgia with the help of Russia. They are also partially recognized as states internationally.

PEOPLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THEIR OWN FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR POLITICAL STATUS. BUT IT SEEMS THE INTERNATIONAL WORLD WANTS TO INTERFERE AND GIVE VALIDATION TO INDEPENDENCE OF STATES IT SUPPORTS ONLY. THESE DECISIONS ARE BASED ON POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY AND NOTHING ELSE.

till next time

xoxo Ms Vee

TIME TO SIT UP AND TAKE NOTICE

Many congratulations to Tanzania's newly elected president John Magufuli. He was born in 1959 and previously served as a Minister of Works in the previous government. Nicknamed the "Bulldozer" the new president has indeed been making drastic changes and it is time for the whole world to sit up and take notice. He scrapped out independence day celebrations so that the money that was set aside for that can be used to help people dying of cholera and also to help clean up the environment. He went on an unannounced trip to the national hospital and found patients lying on the floor. He then fired the Hospital Director and hired a new one. president Magufuli also ordered that 300 beds be bought for the patients he found lying on the floor. Now, that is what i call good leadership. A good leader does not allow people to sugar coat things for him or allow his ministers to take him to the best parts of the country he rules. A good leader is the one who keeps people on their toes and inspires them to work very hard. A good leader goes on unannounced visits to really notice the state of his country. President John Magufuli is making history by implementing austerity measures in Tanzania so that all the citizens in the country benefits.

Here a look at what the "Bulldozer" has been up to:

1.  He ordered the cost of the party to inaugurate new parliaments to be slashed from $100 000 to $7 000
2. He has ordered restrictions on all foreign travel by public officials
3.  He has ordered cuts in tax exemptions
4.  He reportedly refused gifts from people congratulating him when he won the presidency
5. He sacked the head of the main state hospital after he found patients lying on the floor 
6. He dissolved the governing board at the state hospital after discovering that main machines were not working and ordered the new director to get them repaired
7. Magufuli walked to the Finance Ministry and ordered that people must do their jobs after he found some people absent
8. He scrapped independence day celebrations and said the money should be used for a clean up campaign considering the citizens of Tanzania have been dying from cholera AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME INDEPENDENCE CELEBRATIONS HAVE BEEN SCRAPPED IN TANZANIA
9. He scrapped Christmas cards to save costs and said the money should be used to pay off government debts
10. He has promised to create a special court to oversee all cases relating to corruption

 AND ALSO when he was the Minister of works he built the desperately needed roads in Tanzania.
He is reputed to be a no nonsense and results driven politician. President Magufuli is indeed a man of action and all African leaders and indeed all world leaders should sit up and take notice.

THE TANZANIANS VOTED WISELY.


XOXO MS VEE
till next time

 

ON A LIGHTER NOTE: I CANT LIVE WITHOUT THE LAW PLUS Mariah Carey - Without You (Official Video)

THE LAW MAKES ME FEEL THIS WAY. I FEEL I CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT THE LAW ANYMORE . EVERYWHERE I TURN IT IS LAW LEFT , RIGHT AND CENTER AND I LOVE IT.


XOXO

MS VEE

me and public international law

Public International law (PIL) is fascinating : at least from my own point of view. PIL covers a lot of things and one gets to understand why states do what they do. My understanding is that everything states do is for their own benefit and they do certain things if acting in such a manner benefits them. It is like the human nature really, people usually do something if it will benefit them. A few human beings, like Mother Theresa really do things out of their good hearts and expecting nothing. Now one concept of public international law has caught my eye and I am writing a dissertation on it. The concept that has stolen my heart and has got me salivating is none other than the controversial customary international law principle of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction is whereby a state can exercise its powers over an individual through prosecution regardless of where the crime was committed , whether the individual is a national of that country as long as it is in respect of heinous crimes such as piracy, war crimes and crimes against humanity. States can only exercise this power with regards to international crimes. The rationale for this principle is to make sure that no one can escape from crimes they committed in another country by escaping to another country. hence, no country can be a safe haven for criminals. This seems fair doesn't it? But doesn't this concept infringe state sovereignty . Wont this principle be used for political gains? Will it not create the tyranny of judges and result in a situation whereby the law is used to further political ideologies or further military strategies? In as much as the principle is theoretically sound , in reality bias, friction and disputes between states may arise when one country has tendencies to prosecute citizens of other countries without batting an eyelid. Will one ever be safe with universal jurisdiction?

Picking your brain......What do you think? Is universal jurisdiction fair /relevant / necessary in your own opinion?

xoxo

Ms Vee-

#FeesMustFall and the law

I have been following with interest the revolutionary students in South Africa in their campaigned famously called the #FeesMustFall campaign. What the South African students are doing is really commendable and should be applauded. The proposed fees hike is beyond the reach of many and the students have to be commended for standing up for their human rights. Every child has a right to education and that right must be protected at all costs. These days this right is under threat and many brilliant students cannot proceed with school for lack of finances. I once learnt at a South African school and i do understand how expensive the fees can be in that country. Most people as it stands cannot even afford tuition fees and to propose a fees hike to me is a violation of the right to education. The South African government is thus putting all students at  a disadvantage. Most parents cannot afford to pay these outrageous amounts given the measly wages they earn. I salute the South African students for standing up for their rights. I salute the South African students for protecting their rights to educations. Indeed fees must fall and they will fall. The students have shown that they are strong and united and this is something to be admired. Citizens of South Africa have also shown their unity as celebrities, campus control, various leaders and the community as a whole have shown their support for these students. The student uprising for justice is highly commendable and it has resulted in talks with President Jacob Zuma and student leaders today which is seeing many students march to the Union Building in a historic march. the movement has gathered momentum and is spreading throughout the country like the Ebola virus as my sister  called it. My only regret is that i was not able to be in South Africa to show my support for my fellow students . Be that as it may support can be shown through social media like Twitter and I will not stop supporting them. Twitter is already seeing 300 tweets per minute of #feesmustfall  and all students all over the world should show their support. These are students in anguish and fighting for their rights. I salute them.

I understand that these students are not just young people throwing tantrums but these are students addressing real issues on the ground. Imagine how a brilliant young students will feel when his or her parents tell him or her that they cannot afford fees and he cannot go to university. Obviously the chains of poverty will never be broken if this is allowed to happen.  Fees must fall to afford everyone the same opportunities in life. This is wrong and I will continue supporting these students. Education is the only hope most people have of getting out of poverty and if they are not able to afford it , then the government might as well be sentencing people to a life of poverty, especially the Black majority of people who are cannot afford tuition. Black people are at a disadvantage as opposed to white people in South Africa because of the apartheid era which people are still recovering from.

 Raising fees is as good as taking the black people to the apartheid era and this is contrary to what people like , Nelson Mandela fought for. Mandela must indeed be turning in his grave looking at the state South Africa is in now. It is truly sad and like the protesting students , I am anguished and am in pain.

I cannot help but think of my little sisters who learn and stay in South Africa this very moment. Are my parents going to be able to afford the tuition fees seeing that they are struggling to pay her high school fees at the moment? Will she be able to realize her dreams ? Will she be able to attend university at all? All these questions traumatize me and i thank the revolutionary students for standing up for their rights and for the rights of the future generations to come.

#FeesMustFall

The fees should fall and they will fall asap.

Ashley Madison : The law, Hacking , Adultery, Suicide

I was not aware of the fact that somebody can actually make money out of infidelity and adultery until yesterday . There is a Canadian based sited called Ashley Madison and they facilitate affairs. Their motto is "Life is short. Have an affair." Millions of people were members of this site and would pay money using credit cards-you name it so as to score an affair with a woman or a man who is married. Apparently the site offers a three month guarantee that one will certainly get an affair going for them once they sign up. What intrigued me (not in a good way) are the levels many people are willing to go for a secret affair. People can pay a huge amount of money just to score a date and possibly sleep with someone they hardly know all in the name of lust. Most of the people on the site  are married people looking for an extra marital affair. The men pay for chats and messages they have with women whilst the women can send messages for free. It is really something else. All was going well for these cheaters and adulterers until this July when some hackers who call themselves the "Impact Team" hacked into the site and threatened to release names, addresses, email address and basically all the private information of people who use this site. I bet for everyone who uses the site their hearts nearly leapt out when they heard such news.  Highly sensitive information of 37 million users was leaked to the media and some well known people were featured on it . It is reported that 2 people have committed suicide over this issue. It is being speculated that they committed the suicide because they couldn't face having their details leaked to the media. Most possibly they were afraid of what their partners would say or do or what their communities would think about them. Whatever they were scared of , I am of the view that they should and ought to have been scared before they started engaging in affairs on Ashley Madison. That fear should have kept them from spending money on strange women and conducting an affair. I think their fear should have stopped them from sending highly sexual messages to other users. I feel that fear should have stopped them from lying openly to their spouses that they were going on a business trip when in fact they were busy spending money on affairs and booking lavish hotels. Then they would have been spared of all the drama that is now panning out. 

The law is also being seen at play in this whole Ashley Madison drama. A man named John Doe in Los Angeles has filed a law suit against Ashley Madison and its parent company Avid Life Media,  seeking class action status for what he claims was negligence on the part of the company to keep its customer's data safe. Invasion of privacy and emotional distress are other things that Ashely Madison Company is being accused of . Avid Life Media was also sued last week in Canada in a class action that seeks $760 million as damages, the Guardian reports. The Toronto police officers are also trying to locate the hackers so that they can be brought to justice ( whose justice? I wonder). I am going to track the events that will continue unfolding concerning this issue.

On Twitter , people are also abuzz with the Madison issue. Some believe the hackers are to blame while some believe the adulterers got what they deserve. As the saying goes, what goes around comes back around. Also one day is one day-cheating and backstabbing always comes back to haunt somebody. Some people are of the view that every person has got skeletons in his or her closet so these hackers should not have done what they did. It is indeed sad to see that people are choosing suicide over dealing with their issues. Someone on twitter suggested that marriage counsellors, divorce lawyers and the likes should be happy now because most marriages are now damaged and some have broken down because of this hack. I do not believe these groups of people who stand to benefit in these circumstances will be happy. I do not think so. It is just their job. It is like thinking that Doctors are happy when people are sick, oh hell no, they just happen to be at your service because of their profession. It is tantamount to saying that marriage counsellors and lawyers have no feelings but only care about the money. Yes , there are a few bad apples here and there but certainly , lawyers have feelings too. Does anyone ever stop to wonder that these same people might also be affected by the hack? What if their spouse or long time lover's details were also leaked? Food for thought. 

xoxo

Life is short. Read my Blog and follow me on Twitter

Ms Vee

PS. Do not commit suicide even if the hackers leaked your name. The church, the lawyers, the marriage counselors and even the spouse you cheated on is here to help. PROBLEMS ARE NOT SOLVED BY SUICIDE

valentine masaiti: MAKING MY VOICE COUNT

valentine masaiti: MAKING MY VOICE COUNT: I wrote this article when I was only 19 years old for some essay competition, and I reproduce it today. YETT ESSAY COMPETITION 2012 ...

Monday Morning newspaper reading and law

Newspapers always contain something to do with law. I was just browsing through the newspaper and certain issues caught my eye. The newspaper reported a case on a woman who was disinherited from her husband's Will. She was customarily married and when the husband died he left a will which effectively disinherited her for he left the matrimonial home to one of his relatives. She contested the will and the court ruled in her favour with regards to the matrimonial property. This indeed got me thinking : What makes a spouse leave nothing for his or her beloved? Indeed there is a thin line between love and hate. You stay with someone for a long time thinking you know them well yet you don't . It is really sad and than God for the law that steps in and rectifies such cruel injustices. I wonder if it is out of spite or jealousy that the other party will remarry and live with the new husband or wife in the same house or it is simply being malicious. Either way it is wrong .

The law does not allow for the disinheritance of a spouse through a will and hence a spouse who finds himself or herself with no place to live can challenge such a will in the courts of law. The court can thus nullify the will fully or partially so that the surviving spouse can benefit too. A surviving spouse is the person who was still married to the deceased before he died. If the person had been divorced then there will not be a surviving spouse to talk about.

xoxo

Ms Vee

widows, children born out of wedlock and my thoughts as a law student

Not so long ago in the Bhila case , the High Court of Zimbabwe ruled that children born out of wedlock had the same rights as children born in wedlock. This ruling was praised by many and equally scorned at by others as well. Activists for equality welcomed this decision and agreed with Honourable Justice Mwayera that there should be no discrimination when it comes to sharing inheritance. I have got to admit that I have mixed feelings for this judgement. On the other hand i applaud it and at the same time i have misgivings. The reason why i applaud it is because i think that children are children regardless of being born out of wedlock or in wedlock. Therefore the father has to take care of his children and they should be entitled to his inheritance. Some children live in abject poverty whilst the father is living large and it is only fair that those kids should partake in their father's estate. On the other hand, one can only imagine how the widow feels when she only becomes aware of children born out of wedlock after her husband's death. She will be expected to share the property she worked so hard for or maybe property she had to sweat and toil for with basically strangers. One can only imagine the bitterness she feels as she remembers those nights they had to go hungry while sacrificing to buy that house or car. It surely is one hell of an ordeal to go through i imagine. No one just wants to give up what they worked so hard for. I can just imagine. Maybe the fact that the widow is allowed to keep the matrimonial home is a bit of solace but still  i can just imagine how hard it is to give up things you thought were yours after all the years of hard work. Maybe that is what has inspired Mr Bhila to appeal against the judgement that places children born out of wedlock and children born in wedlock at a par. When someone goes through all those legal channels to fight for what they believe to be rightfully theirs, I can imagine it takes a lot of strength. At the same time children born out of wedlock are also rightfully entitled to such as the deceased indeed would have sired them knowingly (unless the DNA TESTS PROVE OTHERWISE). I am sure both sides would feel rightfully entitled to the inheritance.

I am still Conflicted. Who is wrong ? Who is right? Should children born out of wedlock be at the same par as children born in wedlock? Is there any difference at all?

xoxo

Ms Vee

The wanna-be doctor that became a lawyer: SHORT AND SWEET

From as long as i can remember i always wanted to be a doctor. It was what i day dreamed of and in class when the teacher asked what i wanted to be i said confidently , I want to be a doctor. But that was not to be. I became a law student instead and one can safely conclude that i will become a lawyer. Life does not always turn out the way we want does it? But sometimes it is for the best. The moment i was enrolled into law school , i knew that was it . When Professor Madhuku took us for Introduction to Law and uttered the words " law is law , its goodness or badness is another" i was hooked. I knew i had gotten myself into something noble and sweet. Lol

XOXO
MS VEE

life in law school

I have to admit , life in law school has not been all rosy. As i am now in my final year i just want to take time to thank the Lord for taking me this far. He has always been there and i thank him for that. I have had occasion to meet different distinguished people in my life through law school and for that I am grateful. There have been hiccups here and there but through it all i have gotten to realize who my true friends are and which ones are not. In law school, i have also learnt that all that glitters is not gold and that sometimes it is good to keep your mouth shut and avoid arguments with foolish people. I have also learnt to go for what i want and also not to take in everything that is said to me as gospel truth. My friend always tells me not to take everything as gospel truth. She is what many might call a reserved person but to me she is chitty chatty and is always there for me through my highs and lows. I have experienced tremendeous grace in law school and i just want to thank the Lord for it. When many of my class mates failed a course that was perceived to be hard , the Lord made sure i sailed through. For that I am truly thankful. It cannot be said that i am more intelligent than the rest of the people that failed, well no, but it has just been this thing called undeserved favour. In all my years in law school, i have also realized that life is what you make it and that if one chooses to think of themselves as inferior to others they are merely doing a deservice to other people. It has been an eyeopener and i must say i have learnt a lot and i will use what i have learnt to empower others. It has been a roller coaster ride indeed. What with the long queues for registration and the constant hustle for accommodation on campus. It has been a long road. I have cherished every moment i have spent on that campus though i believe that a lot needs to be improved there. I am glad because i went through many obstacles in life and they have shaped me to be a better person than i was back then. I now know that common sense is not that common . I have also learnt that not everyone has the best intentions at heart when they wish to help you. I have also realised that some people are as egoistical as Kanye West. In all my learning , i know one thing : I want to make a difference.

Like Michael Jackson sang , Im looking to the woman in the mirror and i am asking her to change this world. I am starting with myself

Start with the person in the mirror as well. Make the changes

xoxo

Ms Vee

My Observations of : The lion , The lawyer ,the law and a whole lot other things

A whole lot of things have been happening in Zimbabwe and i have been observing.

Lion the Cecil is dead. He was brutally "murdered" by an American dentist. There is so much noise about it. Some are saying why is the whole world mourning Cecil while some are mourning. It is interesting really. People all over the world are up in arms over the lion. So whether one is interested in the topic or not , people are just talking about it. On tv channels , on whatsaap chats and in the newspapers. It is all about Cecil. The poor lion that was being researched by Oxford. The poor lion named after Cecil John Rhodes. How interesting. I am fascinated. Because everyone cannot seem to stop talking about it. Even I am blogging about it!!!!May his soul rest in peace. For real. No one should die the way Cecil died , even though he was an animal. Apparently he endured 40 hours of pain. That is so inhumane . It is. The American dentist has faced a lot of criticism on the internet. So much hatred towards one man. Poor him. But then again , what goes around comes -around Cecil suffered so he is also suffering now.

It never rains but it pours in Zimbabwe these days. What with the economic crises and job losses. It is really a sad situation. What is to become of those people? The unemployment rate was already high , pegged unofficially at 80%. Then because those people had no jobs , they resorted to vending in the streets. Then they were kicked off the streets. Then the Supreme Court ruling came and thousands more were laid off to join the already exploding pool of unemployed people. Then the people thought they would just sell second hand clothing. And then those second hand clothes were banned . What to do? Oh what to do? It never rains but it pours.

All the government policies are indeed good. I mean people could get sick from wearing second hand clothes, vendors on the streets caused mayhem and it is a fair deal for employers and employees to be equal aint it? These are all very good ideals we say but in this current economic situation it is not totally bad to turn a blind eye to the fact that Harare has to reach world class status by what and what year. No, that is not the main issue here. people need to survive. There are no jobs and people have children to feed. Why not let them fend for themselves? These austerity measures are indeed harsh. It is truly sad. People are suffering. The government has failed them. What is to become of us? Other countries do not want us. Where to run to? Nowhere to run to . 

And then i was also fascinated by the story of a certain lawyer. Nelson Chamisa. The ZCTU truly left me in stitches. They say just because he represented the employers in a case that led to thousands losing their jobs he must leave his political party because it is a labour backed party. Allow me to laugh out loud!!!Nelson Chamisa did lead to thousands losing their jobs nor did he do anything wrong by doing his job. The common law is the one that states that employees and employers are equal. The lawyer was simply doing his job for crying out loud. It is like saying to a doctor- "you cannot belong to an organisation that speaks out against child abuse because you treat rapists and molesters!". The doctor will simply be offering his services and doing his job when he treats a rapist. So , Nelson Chamisa was simply doing his job. The ZCTU must leave him in peace.

till next time

I will not stop observing and speaking my mind

Ms Vee

my lunch and law

I was just having lunch good people when the subject of law came up. I honestly thought I was safe from the law. After all I was just having lunch at a nice restaurant with ordinary people and I thought nothing about law would come up. Now, as i was digging into my steak and enjoying my lunch , I heard something which stopped me in my tracks. I was not eavesdropping , no I was not. The man who spoke had a booming voice and it was loud enough for me to hear. From what i gathered dear fellows, he was making a business deal with his friends seated with him at the table. I think one of the friends had suggested getting a lawyer to look at their agreement. Or whatever had transpired i do not know. I am simply speculating. Now, I hardly speculate but forgive me this one time. But what he said next -that, I heard clearly....He said ;"Lawyers want to involve themselves in everything. They are very stupid . They think they know everything."I was not angry when I heard this. I was simply intrigued. I remembered a saying I once heard; "Everybody hates lawyers (until they need one)". People hate lawyers until they need one. This hatred can be seen everywhere. Shakespeare once said "lets kill all the lawyers" ---Yeah>>>that bad! 

Some lawyer , who was obviously tired of all the abuse once said ;"Why does everybody hate lawyers ? Give us a break." I laughed out loud. It fascinates me really, the way people hate lawyers yet they turn to them when they need help putting out their fires. Or better yet when they need someone to fight the legal battles for them. How interesting-That moment when somebody realizes they actually need a lawyer. Glorious!!!!Lawyers are legal practitioners in as much as doctors are medical practitioners- the only difference is that lawyers take care of someone's legal health while doctors take care of physical and mental health.Everyone is entitled to legal representation regardless of the fact that they may be a murderer or a thief or have simply been wrongfully accused. Lawyers do not deal with criminal cases only by the way, they also represent that single mother whose husband does not want to pay the maintenance for the kid, they also represent that vendor who has been locked up in jail trying to put food on the table, they also represent that worker that has been unfairly dismissed. The other lawyer also has to represent that father who refuses to pay maintenance and that big Corporation that refuses to pay workers and exploits them. It is all in a day's work. Lawyers are also workers.

No one protests when doctors treats a sociopath, a murderer or that rapist. To everyone it is okay because doctors are simply performing their job. Why can't people understand that lawyers are also performing their jobs when they defend a rapist or a murderer? Even the law itself provides defenses for those things and lawyers simply apply the law!!!! People only realize the importance of lawyers when they are in hot soup. LOL . IT'S OKAY TO HATE LAWYERS...GO AHEAD...UNTIL THAT DAY WHEN YOU NEED A LAWYER. I will be there and I will not say I told you so. No. I will simply be happy for you. Happy that you have someone to represent you as it should be.

I love lawyers. They are the people's advocates. 

xoxo

Ms Vee