"Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum"

Israel Supreme Court reduces prison sentence for former PM Olmert

Israel's Supreme Court on Tuesday reduced the prison sentence of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert from six years to 18 months. 

Olmert was convicted in March 2014 and sentenced to six years imprisonment on several charges dealing with bribery. The ruling by the court overturned the main bribery charge but upheld the lesser charge of taking a 60,000 shekel (USD $15,000) bribe. His sentence was postponed pending the appeal of his conviction. Olmert was accused of accepting money to promote a real-estate project in Jerusalem when he was mayor and the country's trade minister. He was forced to resign in 2009 amid the bribery charges, but has always denied any wrongdoing on his part. Olmert is scheduled to begin his reduced sentence on February 15.

In July 2012 Olmert was acquitted of two major counts of corruption but found guilty of a third lesser charge in the culmination of a three-year trial. In a 700-page ruling, three senior judges of a Jerusalem court rejected the prosecution's key accusations that as a cabinet minister and Jerusalem's mayor before becoming Prime Minister Olmert received bribes from US businessman Moshe Talansky, and that Olmert defrauded Israeli charities by double-billing them for overseas fundraising trips, a charge popularly referred to as the Rishon Tours double-billing affair. Olmert was convicted of breach of trust for granting illegal favors to a long-time friend and business partner while serving as minister of industry, trade and labor between 2002 and 2007. In September 2012 the court sentenced Olmert to a one-year suspended sentence and a fine of about $19,000 for the charge of breaching public trust.

Source: JURIST 

Zimbabwe to amend economic indigenization law

Zimbabwe's Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa on Thursday announced amendments to the nation's foreign investor law in an effort to stimulate Zimbabwe's stagnant economy. 

The ambiguously-worded Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act of 2007 [Chapter 14:33] required all foreign companies to transfer majority ownership into the hands of Zimbabwean citizens. Some feel that President Robert Mugabe's plan to force power into the hands of Zimbabwe's citizens has soured, as other reforms such as land redistribution have largely failed as well. The new amendments loosen the investment requirement, allowing foreign entities to hold majority stock in businesses for up to five years, with an exception of up to 20 years in the energy sector. The amendments have not been well received by everyone in government, however, as Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Minister Patrick Zhuwao decried foreign investment as being solely interested in exploiting the nation's natural resources.

Mugabe's presidency has received criticism in other areas as well. In April, the EU General Court upheld sanctions placed on individuals and companies in Zimbabwe, first imposed in 2002, as a result of the EU's concerns regarding pre-election violence and "serious infringements of human rights" committed by the government of Zimbabwe. In January Amnesty International urged Mugabe to address human rights concerns in Zimbabwe and other parts of the African continent. Also in January Zimbabwe's High Court ordered an immediate halt to the demolition of the homes of farmers who were evicted to clear space for a game park envisioned by First Lady Grace Mugabe. In September 2013 the high court ordered the release of 21 activist members of the opposition party that had been detained for over two years.

Source: JURIST

Brazil begins presidential impeachment proceedings

Impeachment proceedings were opened against Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff on Wednesday for allegations of violating fiscal laws and manipulating finances. Rousseff's political enemy and speaker of the Chamber of Deputies Eduardo Cunha accepted a request from opposition lawyers to begin the impeachment process. Rousseff denies any wrongdoing and "received with indignation" the decision. A committee from the lower house of congress will vote on Rousseff's impeachment. If two-thirds vote for impeachment, the case will move to the Senate for a 90-day trial. Cunha himself is currently under investigation for corruption allegations and accepting bribes.

Brazil has been the subject of several corruption scandals in both politics and business in recent years. In October, Brazil's Federal Accounts Court determined that Rousseff's government accounting practices were illegal. In September a Brazil court sentenced former treasurer of the country's governing Worker's Party Joao Vaccari Neto to 15 years and four months in jail for charges stemming from his connection to the Petrobras corruption scandal. Vaccari was found guilty of corruption, money laundering and conspiracy, having accepted at least USD $1 million in bribes from the oil company. Earlier in September the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil banned corporate entities from providing funding to political candidates in the future in an attempt to prevent further corruption, calling the practice unconstitutional.

Source: JURIST

Spain court declares Catalonia independence plan unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of Spain on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a resolution by the Parliament of Catalonia that proposed a plan for the region's independence from Spain by 2017. The resolution was approved by Catalonian lawmakers in November, and stated that Parliament would take the "necessary steps" to effect the separation from Spain in a peaceful and democratic manner and in a way that would empower citizens. The court held that the resolution violated Articles 1.1, 1.2 , 2, 9.1 and 168 of the Constitution and Articles 1 and 2.4 of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. The resolution states that the separation of Catalan from Spain is not subject to the decisions of the Constitutional Court.

The Catalonia independence movement has gathered momentum in recent years following the economic crisis in the country that began in 2008. In September the High Court of Justice of Catalonia summoned Catalonia President Artur Mas over his involvement in the 2014 independence referendum. Last year Mas signed a decree calling for a referendum on secession and independence from Spain, inciting confrontation from Spain's central government in Madrid. In February 2014 Spain's parliament rejected Catalonia's proposed referendum, which asked voters if they wanted Catalonia to become a state, and, in the case of an affirmative response, if they wanted this state to be independent. When Catalonia proceeded with the referendum, the Constitutional Court held the independence vote to be unconstitutional.

Source: JURIST

Oscar Pistorius guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp

Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder after a South African appeals court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.

Pistorius killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013 after shooting four times through a locked toilet door.

He is currently under house arrest after spending one year of his original five-year sentence in jail.
Pistorius will have to return to court to be re-sentenced, for murder.

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years, but judges can apply some discretion.
South African law does not make provision for someone to be placed under house arrest for more than five years, so Pistorius will be going back to prison, reports the BBC's Pumza Fihlani in Johannesburg.

Will he return to jail?

Yes. He will be back behind bars, less than two months after he was placed under house arrest.

When will he be sentenced?

We don't have a date yet, but it will be next year. The minimum sentence for murder is 15 years, but the judge does have the discretion to lower it.

Can he appeal?

Yes, but only if his lawyers are convinced that the appeal judges violated his constitutional rights. So it's a high threshold, and hard to meet.

Source: BBC News

Standard Bank to pay $32.6m over Tanzania bribery scandal

A judge approved Britain's first deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), a new type of plea deal, on Monday in a case centred on $6 million in bribes paid to Tanzanian officials by the Tanzanian unit of South Africa's Standard Bank (SBKJ.J).

Under the deal with the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the London arm of Standard Bank, which worked with the bank's Tanzanian subsidiary on a 2012-2013 transaction to raise $600 million (£399 million) for the Tanzanian government, faces penalties totalling $32.2 million after admitting to failing to prevent bribery.

Introduced into English law last year, a DPA is a court-approved deal under which a company charged with wrongdoing agrees to sanctions that can include fines and additional supervision, in return for legal proceedings being suspended.

The penalties in this case include a $16.8 million fine to be paid to the SFO, a $6 million fine plus interest of over $1 million to be paid to the government of Tanzania, and $8.4 million in disgorgement of profits.

London-based Standard Bank Plc has since changed its name to ICBC Standard Bank following the acquisition of a controlling stake by China's ICBC earlier this year.

The new DPA procedure is seen as a potentially useful tool for British law enforcers to tackle corporate wrongdoing as prosecuting companies in Britain can be very costly and complex.

"This landmark DPA will serve as a template for future agreements," Director of the SFO, David Green, said in a statement after the agreement was approved by senior High Court judge Brian Leveson at a public hearing.

Handing down his judgement after hearing a detailed account of the facts and of how the SFO had arrived at those figures, Leveson said the DPA was "fair, reasonable and proportionate" and was in the public interest.

Lawyers predicted that the DPA would be the first of many.

"There has been fairly widespread concern that the U.S.-style plea deals present a way for big companies to simply 'buy their way out of trouble'," said Barry Vitou, partner and head of Global Corporate Crime at law firm Pinsent Masons.

"The bar in the UK will, however, be set much higher. A key difference here is that judges will independently assess DPAs, and will only sign off on them if they are in the interests of justice," he said.

CASH WITHDRAWALS

The case stems from a sovereign note private placement undertaken in 2012-2013 by Stanbic Bank Tanzania Ltd and London-based Standard Bank Plc to raise $600 million for the Tanzanian government as part of its five-year development plan.

In a lengthy statement setting out the details, SFO counsel Edward Garnier told the court that Stanbic and Standard Bank had initially quoted a fee of 1.4 percent of gross proceeds raised, but matters did not progress until that went up to 2.4 percent.

Evidence showed that the additional 1 percent, worth $6 million, was paid to a "local partner", a Tanzanian company called EGMA, for supposed consultancy services.

These arrangements were made by Bashir Awale, then chief executive of Stanbic, and Shose Sinare, then the unit's head of corporate and investment banking. Awale was later sacked, while Sinare resigned.

EGMA's chairman and one of its three shareholders and directors was Harry Kitilya, then head of Tanzania's tax authority, while its managing director was Fratern Mboya, ex-CEO of Tanzania's Capital Markets and Securities Authority.

Garnier said the purpose of the $6 million was to induce government officials to show favour to Stanbic in appointing it to conduct the private placement, and to reward those whom Awale and Sinare believed had been induced to act improperly.

The money was deposited into an EGMA account in March 2013, and withdrawn by Mboya in large cash amounts within days. Garnier told the court the cash has never been traced.

The cash withdrawals raised suspicions within Stanbic Tanzania, with four employees raising concerns. After those were escalated to head office in South Africa and to London, the UK-based subsidiary reported itself to law enforcement agencies.

Standard Bank Group said in a statement it had fully cooperated with investigators from the outset.

"The group and its subsidiaries take the risk of corruption very seriously and deeply regret that this issue arose on a transaction with which they were involved," it said.

Kitilya resigned from the tax authority in December 2013, while Mboya died in July that year.

ICBC, which acquired 60 percent of London-based Standard Bank in February, had no direct interest in the bank at the time of the corrupt transaction, and had no involvement in the incident in any way.


Brazil arrests politician and investment banker in corruption investigation

[JURIST] Brazil's highest court, on Wednesday, ordered the arrest of André Esteves, the chief executive of the country's largest investment bank, and that of Delcídio do Amaral, a powerful senator of the country's ruling party. Both individuals are accused of obstructing the course of the investigation into bribery and corruption affiliated with Petrobras, a state-run oil company. The prosecutors presented a taped conversation to Supreme Court Justice Teori Zavascki in which Amaral appeared to offer Nestor Cervero, former head of Petrobras, an escape path to Europe in exchange for his promise not to disclose any evidence concerning himself and Esteves. Cervero himself was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for corruption and money laundering in the Petrobras scandal. Prosecutors have further alleged that Amaral offered to pay Cervero a monthly stipend financed by Esteves. The arrests drove share prices down by nearly 40% causing investors to withdraw funds in a hurry from Esteves' bank, BTG Pactual.

The arrest of these two individuals have now brought the arrest count in the two-year Petrobras investigation to over 100 involving about 50 politicians including the chief of staff under Brazil's former President Jose Dirceu, former speaker of the house Eduardo Cunha, and the former President himself Fernando Collor de Mellon in various kickback schemes. Prosecutors in the Petrobras investigation allege that businesses paid a total of over USD $2 billion to obtain Petrobras contracts, which they then exploited by running up costs and delaying completion. Attempts to impeach the current President, and former chairwoman of Petrobras, Dilma Rousseff were also made last month, but the parliamentary commission found no proof implicating her in the Petrobras scandal. The arrest of Amaral have renewed the vigor to implicate Rousseff and is inflicting tremendous pressure on her party.

Source: Jurist.org

Proper Service of Summons in Tanzania: The Managing Director TAWFIQ Bus Service V. Angelo Rwakatale

The Managing Director TAWFIQ Bus Service V. Angelo Rwakatale, Civil Appeal No. 13/2003 (Court of Appeal of Tanzania - Bukoba Registry)

Decision delivered on: 18/01/2007.

Theme: Proper Service of Summons

JUDGMENT

LUANDA, J.

Having being satisfied that the appellant was duly served with the summons to file a defence, which he did not file within the prescribed time, the Bukoba district court entered an ex parte judgment in favour of the respondent.

Somehow the appellant came to know about this. Through a firm of advocates going by the name of Phillip Law Chambers the appellant filed an application to set aside that judgment. The reason adduced was that he was not served with the aforesaid summons. 

The district Court did not buy his story. The application was dismissed with costs.

Aggrieved by that ruling, hence this appeal. In this appeal Mr. Kabunga learned counsel from Phillip Law Chambers represented the appellant; whereas Mr. Rweyemamu learned advocate from a law firm known as Rweyemamu and Rugaimukamu Advocates represented the respondent.

Mr. Kabunga submitted to the effect that the purported service allegedly to have been affected to the appellant through one Mr. Bashiru was not proper. Mr. Bashiru is neither the appellant nor an agent of the appellant. Further, he went on to say even the affidavit of service of the court broker who affected service was not signed by the said Mr. Bashiru. And further, the signing in a dispatch book allegedly done by Mr. Bashiru was not proper in law. Moreover, the said dispatch book was not produced in court. To buttress up his case he cited Order 5, Rule 12 and Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 and Mohamed Nassoro v. Ali Mohamed [1991] TLR. 133. He prayed the appeal be allowed with costs and the case to commence afresh.

Responding Mr. Rweyemamu said the service of the summons was proper. First, the appellant had an office in Bukoba. Second, Mr. Bashiru was served twice, i.e. he was served with summons to file a defence and date of judgment. It is Mr. Rweyemamu’s submission that the appellant did not attend the first one but attended the second one for judgment through an advocate.

Turning to dispatch book, Mr. Rweyemamu said that is contained in para 5 of the respondent’s counter affidavit. In any case, he went on to say, the appellant did not deny the existence of Mr. Bashiru and that they did not disclose who is he.

Mr. Rweyemamu maintained that in terms of Order 5, rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33, the service was properly affected.

In reply Mr. Kabunga said Mr. Bashiru is not known. This is contained in para 2 of the affidavit of Mr. Mohamed. As to dispatch book he said annexing is not enough; it ought to be tendered.

In refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment entered in favour of the respondent, the learned Principal District Magistrate said, I quote:-

“To start with Mr. Mohamed Seleman the Managing Director of the Tawfiq Bus Service in para 2 of his affidavit states that on 2nd September received information by telephone from a person who did not tell him his name that there is a case against him pending for hearing before Bukoba district Court. The date he mentioned above to have received a Telephone is the day this court issued summons to the defendant to come for judgment on 3/9/2003. The summons was returned with an endorsement of Bashiru Booking Officer. This shows me that this Bashiru is the one who telephoned Mohamed Selemani: We all know that TAWFIQ BUS SERVICE has got their office here at Bukoba”. 

The learned magistrate concluded thus:-

“I am satisfied that here at Bukoba TAWFIQ BUS SERVICE has an office and argent (sic). The argent (sic) was properly served with summons and failed to communicate with the defendant concerning the case in court. I can therefore say …” [Emphasis added]

Under Order 5, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap.33 Service of summons issued to the defendant may be affected upon the defendant himself or through his agent. But how service is affected? The answer is found in Rule 16 of Order 5 of the same Code. The Rule reads:-

16.Where the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the summons to the defendant personally, or to an agent or other person on his behalf, he shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered to an acknowledgment of service endorsed on the Original Summons. [Underscoring Mine]

The question in this appeal is whether there was service of summons to the defendant. The summons returned does not contain any endorsement made by either the appellant himself or his agent to meet the requirement of the above cited Rule. In its stead it is written thus:- 

                         “Signed in dispatch.”

Is that proper in law? Obviously the answer is no. That does not comply with the law. But the respondent contended that the appellant was served through a dispatch, of course through an agent. And the one affected service were court Brokers. But the respondent is the one who maintained in his counter affidavit that the appellant were duly served with summons. He attached with a photocopy of a page of a dispatch book. And in his verification clause he stated that, that fact – which is the contents of para 5 of his affidavit – is true to his best knowledge. Surely that is not correct. That fact ought to be deponed by the Court Broker and not the respondent. The Court Broker was the one to tell us how he served the appellant and why he used the dispatch book, if really he served the appellant and not the respondent. So what he had deponed is hearsay. That goes contrary to the rule of affidavit as is provided for under Order XIX, rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 which reads:-

3(1) Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statement of his belief may be admitted:- Provided that the grounds thereof are stated.

From the foregoing therefore, the respondent did not at all discharge that burden that the summons was duly served upon the appellant through Mr. Bashiru. There was no service.

In sum the appeal has merits. It is allowed with costs. The appellant should be served with a copy of summons along with a plaint. Then, the case to proceed to trial.

Order accordingly.

B.M. Luanda

JUDGE


Spain high court blocks Catalonia secession

[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Spain on Wednesday suspended Catalonia's secession resolution following an appeal by the Spanish central government asking the court to review the resolution. Earlier this week the Catalan Parliament passed the resolution to begin secession from Spain, declaring that the decision is not subject to constitutional rulings and hoping to establish a republic within 18 months. However, many expect the Constitutional Court will declare the resolution unconstitutional. Catalan independence leaders have vowed to continue their fight for separation from Spain despite the court's formal suspension of their efforts.

The Catalonia independence movement has gathered momentum in recent years following the economic crisis in the country that began in 2008. Catalans have been increasingly supportive of separating from Spain, mainly because they feel Catalonia, an affluent region making one-fifth of Spain's GDP, pays more to Spain's central government than it gets in return and that the Spanish government is mostly at fault for the country's economic instability. In September the High Court of Justice of Catalonia summoned Catalonia President Artur Mas over his involvement in the 2014 independence referendum. Last year Mas signed a decree calling for a referendum on secession and independence from Spain, inciting confrontation from Spain's central government in Madrid. In February 2014 Spain's parliament rejected Catalonia's proposed referendum, which asked voters if they wanted Catalonia to become a state, and, in the case of an affirmative response, if they wanted this state to be independent. When Catalonia proceeded with the referendum, the Constitutional Court held the independence vote to be unconstitutional.

Source: JURIST

EU court allows prisoner voting bans in some circumstances

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Tuesday that a convicted murderer could be banned from voting because the ban is proportionate to the offense. Thierry Delvigne challenged the ban before the ECJ as a violation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to a press release from the court, "the deprivation of the right to vote to which Mr Delvigne is subject represents a limitation of the exercise of the right of EU citizens to vote in elections to the European Parliament, as guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Court notes that limitations may, however, be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, and provided, inter alia, that they are proportionate." Sean Humber, solicitor at Leigh Day, a law firm specializing in human rights, stated "As a result of this judgment, it is likely that prisoners convicted of less serious offences will now be able to take legal action against the Government for being denied the vote in the 2014 European elections. In addition, the Government will inevitably leave itself open to legal action from prisoners facing the prospect of being unable to vote in the European elections in 2019 if it does not take action now."

The controversy over UK prisoner voting rights stems from a 2005 case filed by John Hirst, who had been sentenced to life in prison for killing his landlord. Hirst claimed he should be able to vote while in prison, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) agreed, ruling that the ban breached Hirst's human rights. In March 2011 the UK government commenced legal measures to overturn the ECHR ruling that declared the UK's ban unlawful. The government requested that the ECHR decision in Greens and MT v. the United Kingdom be appealed to the Grand Chamber of the court, believing it may reverse the precedent that grants prisoners the right to vote. In October 2013 the Supreme Court of the UK upheld the law that banned inmates from voting. In August 2014 the ECHR ruled that the UK ban violates prisoners'; human rights. JURIST guest columnist Richard Edwards of the University of the West of England Bristol Law School described the "constitutional crisis" facing the UK over prisoner disenfranchisement.

Source: JURIST.ORG

JURIST - Paper Chase

Blog Archive

Followers