Law Society offside over ZILS

and the Law Society of Zimbabwe, and have no doubt in my mind that the fight is not only purely political but has been personalised.
The Zimbabwe Institute of Legal Studies dovetails with and complements Government’s policy of affording equal access to education to all while the Law Society of Zimbabwe’s stance appears to be mired in the exclusionist policies of yesteryear.
Since its formation, the Law Society of Zimbabwe has failed to form anything of the magnitude of the Zimbabwe Institute of Legal Studies and instead of saluting and complementing Mr Masimirembwa they stubbornly and jealously oppose his efforts.
It appears that the LSZ has forfeited its mandate of regulating lawyers in this particular case to pursue a selfish political agenda against Mr Masimirembwa and the ZILS. The LSZ’s obstinate refusal to recognise the good intent of ZILS is not driven by the need to protect the public, the administration of justice or the legal profession, but is a clear example of innovation phobia which has no place in a highly literate society like ours.
Mr Masimirembwa’s crime as I see it is his effort to widen the source of legal knowledge which has for a long time been monopolised by the likes of Tinoziva Bere at the LSZ. The level of myopia in the LSZ is unprecedented and must not be allowed to distract progressive minds from the bigger picture.
Its time Tinoziva Bere realised that law is read not just for practice in the courts, but for use in many other areas of endeavour. There are many other professions that require basic legal knowledge in their day to day activities, and it is this niche that the ZILS seeks to fill, and with time nothing should stop the college from moving to degree programmes even. Its all about being in tune with the needs of society.
One’s wish to be a lawyer or member of the LSZ for that matter must be left to the individual after qualification and must never be used to discredit an institution registered according to the laws of the land.
I have been following the LSZ’s attack on Mr Masimirembwa with keen interest since his application for re-registration and I have no doubt whatsoever now that the LSZ has personalised its opposition to him and the ZILS.
Mr Masimirembwa applied for re-registration at the same time with Professor Lovemore Madhuku but surprisingly his application was turned down for frivolous reasons such as his position at the National Incomes and Pricing Commission while Madhuku was re-admitted without hassles.
While I have nothing against Professor Madhuku’s re-admission as he deserved a second chance, I can’t help but fell, in these circumstances, that he was readmitted because many in the LSZ executive passed through his hands and are political allies.
It appears the law is being applied selectively against Mr Masimirembwa. It can also be concluded with certainty that the LSZ is a political player in legal robes who is employed to fight Masimirembwa and his political party hence their reference to the role he played at the NIPC as the basis of denying him readmission.
Professor Madhuku was readmitted by LSZ despite the fact that he was initially struck off for similar breaches as Mr Masimirembwa. But not only that, he was pursuing a purely political career over the years while Mr Masimirembwa was heading a national commission.
Today, Mr Masimirembwa wants to open a law college, not offer degrees but various diploma and para-legal qualifications and is being frustrated for purely personal and political reasons.
The LSZ must not be allowed to be both prosecutor and jury otherwise those who are not sponsored by donor money will be denied rights in the guise of standards. These standards are not set in chambers of law but in political boardrooms where tea is served by political waiters whose incomes are paid to intoxicating such lawyers to work against proactive brains such as those behind ZILS.
Isn’t it ironic that after exhibiting blatant favouritism the LSZ’s parting note was, “committed to justice and rule of law.” Really?
Day in day out we read comments from the LSZ purporting to be defending justice and human rights. What are they doing to Mr Masimirembwa’s rights to pursue his passion, and the rights of the ordinary Zimbabweans to access knowledge?
Is selective interpretation of conditions of admission and readmission of lawyers on political lines ethical?
As a statutory Board, the LSZ is supposed to demonstrate utmost good faith, fairness and integrity when arriving at decisions. It is not supposed to judge government officers for implementing policy as it did in the case of Mr Masimirembwa’s duties NIPC?
I need convincing that the LSZ is not a political front disguised as a Statutory Board for the regulation of Lawyers. What is more? The LSZ is full of lawyers who have been masquerading as champions of human rights, good governance and rule of law. I don’t see how that fits in with the fight the body is waging against an enterprising Zimbabwean keen to provide wider access to legal knowledge.
Can someone tell Tinoziva Bere and his group that they are not better than everyone just because they head LSZ today? I am sure the Ministry of Justice has overall oversight and its time the Ministry reins in this loose cannon before innovative entrepreneurs are discouraged and those thirsty for knowledge are denied right of access by politicians in legal robes.