[JURIST] Iranian-American scholar Dr. Haleh Esfandiari [WWC profile], currently detained by the Iranian government, is being denied access to counsel, according to her lawyer, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi [BBC profile]. Esfandiari, director of the Middle East Program at the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars [think tank website], was formally charged last month [JURIST report] with plotting to overthrow the Iranian government by organizing a network "against the sovereignty of the country." Iranian state newspaper the Kayhan has accused Esfandiari [JURIST report] of acting in concert with the United States and Israel to topple the Iranian government.

Ebadi said the Tehran Revolutionary Court told her Monday that Esfandiari was not in need of counsel and denied her access into the building. Ebadi told the Iranian Labour News Agency [official website] that the judiciary officials were ignoring the law and depriving Esfandiari of her civil rights. The US State Department has called for the release [transcript] of Esfandiari and several other Iranian-Americans held by the Iranian government, saying that they do not pose a threat to the Iran regime. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The US Senate voted 53-38 [roll call] Monday on a cloture motion [Senate backgrounder] limiting debate on a joint resolution expressing its lack of confidence [JURIST report] in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [JURIST news archive], effectively stopping the resolution from coming to a floor vote. The motion fell seven votes short of the 60 necessary to pass it and presumably adopt the much anticipated non-binding no-confidence resolution against Gonzales, who some had anticipated would resign before the Senate debate [JURIST report]. Despite harsh criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, Gonzales has steadfastly resisted calls for resignation and President Bush has repeatedly declared his support [JURIST report] for the beleaguered Attorney General.

Congress does not have the power to force Gonzales from his post unless it votes to impeach him; the no-confidence vote was an attempt by lawmakers to nudge his resignation in the wake of longstanding controversy surrounding the allegedly-political firings of eight US Attorneys, as well as questions about his conduct as White House counsel [JURIST report] in the NSA domestic surveillance program. White House spokesman Tony Fratto has said that administration considers the no-confidence debate a political stunt [JURIST reports]. AP has more.

[JURIST] Thailand's Assets Examination Committee (AEC) ordered the assets of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and his wife frozen on Monday, saying the $1.6 billion dollars should not be touched until a court determines if the money was legally obtained. Thaksin, who made his fortune after founding what is now the Shin Corporation [corporate website; Wikipedia backgrounder] in 1983, is estimated to be worth in excess of $2 billion, but much of that money is in accounts belonging to members of his extended family. Many of the funds now frozen were obtained following last year's $1.9 billion sale of the company. The AEC also froze all accounts held by Thaksin in Bangkok. The AEC has been investigating Thaksin and his family for allegations of corruption [JURIST report] and tax evasion.

The Royal Thai Army [official website] seized power from Thaksin in a bloodless military coup [JURIST report] in September while Thaksin was out of the country. The new government has struggled to find evidence [JURIST report] of Thaksin's alleged corruption prior to the coup, but the AEC recommended charges which were ultimately brought [JURIST reports] against Thaksin's wife and other members of his extended family for failure to pay taxes on stock sales. Thaksin himself remains in exile. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] granted certiorari Monday in three cases [order list, PDF] to be heard next term, two of which deal with federal sentencing guidelines. In Kimbrough v. US (06-6330) [docket] the court will decide an appeal of a Fourth Circuit case stemming from a district judge refusing to order a higher sentencing range because the defendant was dealing both crack and powder cocaine. The Fourth Circuit vacated Kimbrough's lesser sentence [opinion, PDF] and remanded for resentencing. AP has more on Kimbrough. In Gall v. US (06-7949) [docket], the court will deal with another circuit court order resentencing of a defendant who was sentenced below guidelines. The Eighth Circuit ruled that it was unreasonable for an drug dealer selling MDMA, or ecstasy, to be sentenced below the guideline amount [opinion, PDF] without any special circumstances in the case.

Finally in Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn (06-1221) [docket] the court will determine if testimony can be allowed in federal age discrimination cases from workers who suffered job bias but were not parties to the case. The Tenth Circuit ruled that Ellen Mendelsohn was deprived of a full opportunity [opinion, PDF] to present her Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) [29 USC 621-634 text] case to the jury when the trial court excluded evidence from other former Sprint employees. AP has more on Mendelsohn. SCOTUSblog has additional coverage.

[JURIST] Egyptian police reportedly prevented voters from entering polling stations and arrested approximately 100 members from the banned opposition Muslim Brotherhood [party website; FAS backgrounder] Monday as Egypt held elections for the Shura Council [Wikipedia backgrounder], the upper house of the Egyptian parliament. Some voters also reported the government pressured them to cast ballots for the National Democratic Party (NDP) [official website], which is headed President Hosny Mubarak [official profile]. Eighty-eight seats on the 265-member Council are open in the direct elections this year. One hundred seventy-six representatives are chosen by direct elections and another 88 representatives are appointed by Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood is fielding 19 candidates, who run as "independents" because of the Muslim Brotherhood's banned status.

Egyptian police are estimated to hold over 800 Muslim Brotherhood members [JURIST report] in custody. The Brotherhood says that the government is trying to disrupt its campaign to elect members into the Shura Council, while the Egyptian government accuses the organization of trying to create an Islamic theocracy through violence. Last Monday, a military trial of 40 senior members of the Brotherhood resumed [JURIST report] despite criticism from Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. The 40 defendants were initially acquitted of all charges in January in a civilian criminal court, but were rearrested shortly following their release. AP has more.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Georgia [official website] Monday dismissed a challenge to Georgia's voter ID law [text; JURIST news archive], finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to mount the challenge [opinion, PDF; summary (pg. 4), PDF], without addressing the law itself. The court said that the plaintiff, as a first time Georgia voter, was entitled to use a non-photo ID, such as a copy of a paycheck or utility bill, at the time of filing the case. The court rejected her attempt to amend her complaint when her status later changed, saying that because the original complaint had an incurable jurisdictional defect, "there is no viable document to amend." The court additionally noted that she did have a qualifying government photo ID regardless, in the form of a MARTA [official website] transit pass, and therefore could not be harmed by the voter ID law.

In September, State Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr. held that the controversial law was not required under the Georgia constitution [text, PDF] and would disenfranchise otherwise qualified voters [JURIST report], who generally have no use for a state-issued ID [GA Department of Driver Services information]. The law was passed by a Republican majority [JURIST report] in the Georgia legislature, who say it will fight voter fraud. Those against the law say it will likely have a negative impact on the turnout of poor, elderly and minority voters, who statistics show are less likely to have driver's licenses. A federal challenge [JURIST report] to the law is still pending. AP has more.

[JURIST] The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) [advocacy website] Monday accused [press release, PDF] the Zimbabwean government of "interfering with the proper functioning of the administration of justice, the role of lawyers and their independence," following a five-day mission in which the rights group found instances in which lawyers representing dissidents were repeatedly harassed, subjected to detention, or beaten by police. The ICJ also cited an incident in which a lawyer representing the Attorney-General of Zimbabwe [JURIST news archive] was physically assaulted by police as an example of the erosion to the rule of law, which the ICJ attributes to the government's failure to hold police responsible for "repeatedly and blatantly [ignoring] court orders."

In May, Zimbabwean police refused to comply with a High Court ruling [JURIST report] requiring police officials to vacate a farm seized by police in March, and responded by ordering more police on to the property. In March, opposition leader and presidential hopeful Morgan Tsvangirai [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] was arrested and beaten [JURIST reports] while under police custody. Police officials have routinely ignored court orders and critics have alleged that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe [BBC profile] has given tacit approval to their actions. South Africa's Mail & Guardian has more.

[JURIST] Yahoo! Inc. [corporate website] condemned the persecution of individuals for political expression in China Monday, saying it has informed the Chinese government of its position but reiterating that Yahoo! must comply with Chinese law if it is to do business in China. Yahoo! is currently facing legal challenges alleging it aided and abetted human rights violations [JURIST report] committed by the Chinese government by providing Chinese officials with information, including e-mail records and user ID numbers, that helped them to identify pro-democracy activists.

The suits, filed by the World Organization for Human Rights USA [advocacy website] on behalf of imprisoned internet activists Wang Xiaoning [Wikipedia profile], Wang's wife Yu Ling, and journalist Shi Tao [Wikipedia profile] in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, rely on the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Statute [texts]. A 2006 Amnesty International report criticized [JURIST report] Yahoo! and other Internet companies for so-called "Internet oppression," alleging that they have been complicit in efforts by the Chinese government to silence government critics in violation of stated corporate policies. Amnesty urged the companies to petition the Chinese government for the release of "cyber-dissidents." AP has more.

[JURIST] A US federal appeals court ruled [PDF text] Monday that the military cannot seize and imprison civilians lawfully residing in the United States and detain them as "enemy combatants." The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] rejected the government's contention that the president was authorized to order the military seizure of Illinois resident and Qatari native Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri [Brennan Center case materials] from civilian custody, and hold him indefinitely in a military jail without charge as an "enemy combatant" [JURIST news archive]. The court ruled that the Defense Department must release al-Marri from military custody within a reasonable amount of time, perhaps transferring him back to civilian authorities, or initiating deportation proceedings, just so long as military detention ceases.

The Justice Department argued that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction [JURIST report] over al-Marri's claims under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [PDF text; JURIST news archive], but the Court rejected that argument:

We hold that the new statute does not apply to al-Marri, and so we retain jurisdiction to consider his petition. Furthermore, we conclude that we must grant al-Marri habeas relief. Even assuming the truth of the Government's allegations, the President lacks power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain al-Marri. If the Government accurately describes al-Marri's conduct, he has committed grave crimes. But we have found no authority for holding that the evidence offered by the Government affords a basis for treating al-Marri as an enemy combatant, or as anything other than a civilian.

This does not mean that al-Marri must be set free. Like others accused of terrorist activity in this country, from the Oklahoma City bombers to the surviving conspirator of the September 11th attacks, al-Marri can be returned to civilian prosecutors, tried on criminal charges, and, if convicted, punished severely. But the Government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention. For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians -- let alone imprison them indefinitely.

[JURIST] The government of Pakistan has prepared a new complaint against suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry [official website; JURIST news archive], Pakistan Minister of Law, Justice & Human Rights Muhammad Wasi Zafar [official profile] said Sunday. Zafar added that the new document will be filed at an "appropriate time," although he refused to provide details on the new charges.

Last Thursday, three intelligence directors under Musharraf's government accused the suspended chief justice of wanting to head an interim government [JURIST report] and spying on fellow judges. The Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] is expected to rule this week on whether it has jurisdiction [JURIST report] over the legal disputes involving Chaudhry's March 9 suspension [JURIST report] for alleged abuses of office after postponing a decision last Friday [JURIST report]. Legal observers say that the delay may have reflected internal disagreements amongst the thirteen justices that sit on the bench. Reuters has more. AFP has additional coverage.

[JURIST] Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell [official profile] said Sunday that he favors the immediate closure [transcript] of all detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], adding that he would also "get rid" of the framework created by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) [PDF text] and instead prosecute terrorist suspects under existing federal law or military courts. In an appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press," Powell also criticized the denial of habeas corpus rights.

Powell said:

And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow, but this afternoon. I'd close it. And I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, "Well, then they'll have access to lawyers, then they'll have access to writs of habeas corpus." So what? Let them. Isn't that what our system's all about? And, by the way, America, unfortunately, has two million people in jail all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I'd get rid of the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts-martial. I would do that because I think it's a more equitable way to do it and it's more understandable in constitutional terms. I would always—I would also do it because every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. And so, essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it, and it's causing us far damage than any good we get for it. But, remember what I started in this discussion saying, "Don't let any of them go." Put them into a different system, a system that is experienced, that knows how to handle people like this.

[JURIST] At least one-third of the 37 immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 are highly-connected Republicans or Bush administration insiders and half of those appointed lacked prior experience in immigration law, the Washington Post reported Monday. Immigration judges, who sit alone on cases, annually deport approximately 250,000 people from the United States. The Washington Post's review of DOJ appointments indicate political ties have played an increasingly important role in the selection of immigration judges, but DOJ spokesperson Dean Boyd told the Washington Post that political considerations may not be used in the employment decisions of civil service employees. The allegations come amid an ongoing internal investigation [JURIST report] by the DOJ's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility [official website] into whether department aides illegally made hiring decisions based on considerations of applicants' political activities and connections. Last month, former DOJ aide Monica Goodling [JURIST news archive] testified before the House Judiciary Committee that she considered applicants based upon their politics, a violation of federal law.

The immigration court system was criticized recently by a study [materials] published in the Stanford Law Review that found the courts were inconsistent in granting asylum to applicants [JURIST report]. The SLR study echoes another report [materials] conducted by Syracuse University, which found widespread complaints from lawyers, federal appeals court judges, and other immigration legal professionals concerning numerous instances of failures by immigration judges to provide a "fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the nation's immigration laws in all cases." The Washington Post has more.

[JURIST] Lebanon's Supreme Judicial Council convened Monday to discuss the nomination of 12 Lebanese judges to be considered by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for appointment to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon [UN materials], established under UN Security Council Resolution 1757 [PDF text; JURIST report] to investigate and try suspects in the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri [JURIST news archive]. The tribunal will include four Lebanese judges, one of whom will serve in the trial chamber with two international judges, two in the appellate chamber with three international judges, and a single judge will be reserved as an alternate. Ban will select the four Lebanese judges from the list submitted by the Supreme Judicial Council, which is normally responsible for judicial appointments, disciplinary actions, and other personnel decisions. Other details surrounding the tribunal, including where the court will be located and where suspects will be detained, remain unresolved.

Lebanese National Assembly speaker Nabih Berri [official profile] has criticized [JURIST report] the Security Council's unilateral establishment of the Hariri tribunal as an infringement of Lebanese sovereignty and an impediment of the reconciliation process in Lebanon [JURIST news archive]. The resolution circumvented the Lebanese National Assembly at the request [JURIST report] of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora [BBC profile] after Siniora said that "all possible means" to ratify a UN tribunal proposal [JURIST report] in the National Assembly had failed. The controversial proposal, also opposed [JURIST comment] by pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud [official profile], has been a source of major disagreement in Lebanon's deeply sectarian political arena. The Lebanese cabinet approved a draft plan [JURIST report] for the tribunal last November despite the resignation of all pro-Syrian cabinet members from the militant Hezbollah and Amal Movement [party website, in Arabic]. Reports from a UN commission probing Hariri's death have implicated Syrian officials in the assassination [JURIST report] and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said that Syria will reject [JURIST report] "any cooperation requested from Syria that compromises national sovereignty." From Lebanon, the Daily Star has more.

[JURIST] South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun [BBC profile] criticized South Korea's election laws Sunday, saying that the country's political system with a single five-year presidential term was "underdeveloped" and should be reformed. Roh also criticized the country's political neutrality laws and rejected last Thursday's ruling by the National Election Commission [official website, in Korean] that Roh violated the neutrality laws [AFP report] by repeating criticism of the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) [official website, in Korea]. Roh was impeached in March 2004 by the National Assembly of South Korea for violating election neutrality laws and the Commission found last week that he violated the same law for openly criticizing the GNP and its presidential hopefuls. South Korea's next presidential election is slated for December 19, 2007.

In May 2004, the Constitutional Court of South Korea [official website, in Korean] overturned the National Assembly's impeachment and reinstated Roh [JURIST report] despite finding Roh to have violated the election laws. The high court found that the violation was insufficient to warrant impeachment. Current South Korean election laws requires government officials to maintain neutrality before national elections. The Korea Times has more.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in five cases Monday, including Watson v. Philip Morris [Duke Law case backgrounder], where the Court held that a lawsuit against the tobacco company could not be removed from state to federal court solely based on an argument that the tobacco industry is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Philip Morris was sued in an Arkansas court for alleged violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the company sought to have the case heard in federal court instead. Both the federal district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit allowed the removal [8th Circ. decision] under 28 USC 1442(a)(1) [text], which allows a defendant to remove a case to federal court when the lawsuit is based on actions taken under direction of a federal officer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that "the fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail" does not permit removal under the federal officer removal statute. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Breyer.

In Long Island Care at Home v. Coke [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court upheld a 30-year-old Department of Labor regulation [29 CFR 552.109(a) text] that eliminates overtime for home health care workers providing "companionship services" employed by outside agencies and not directly by families. The DOL regulation creates an exemption to the general requirement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [PDF text] that overtime workers be paid "time and a half" compensation. Evelyn Coke sued her former employer seeking compensation for more than 20 years of overtime, and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down the regulation [opinion, PDF] in 2004, finding it violated congressional intent for the FLSA to provide overtime compensation to employees. The Supreme Court reversed, saying the regulation is "valid and binding." Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Breyer.

In United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court held that a party potentially liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) [text] for cleaning up areas contaminated by hazardous materials may sue under Section 107(a) [42 USC 9607 text] of the Act for contribution from other parties. Atlantic voluntarily cleaned up contamination caused by the company's work retrofitting rocket motors for the US government and later sought to recover some of its costs from the government. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled [PDF text] that the company could pursue its lawsuit under Section 107(a), even if it was barred from bringing an action for contribution under Section 113(f) [42 USC 9613 text] of the law because the clean-up was not compelled by a CERCLA enforcement action. The Supreme Court affirmed the federal appeals court ruling. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Thomas.

In Beck v. PACE International Union [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court held that Crown Vantage, Inc., a pension plan sponsor, did not breach its fiduciary duties by failing to consider a termination plan advocated by PACE International Union when Crown filed for bankruptcy. PACE proposed that Crown terminate pension plans by merging them with PACE's multiemployer plan, but Crown's directors instead opted for a standard termination by purchasing annuities. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision [PDF text] in the case, ruling that Crown did not breach fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) [text] by not considering PACE's merger proposal because "merger is not a permissible method of terminating a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan" under ERISA. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Scalia.

Finally, in Fry v. Plilar [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court held that a federal court must apply the "substantial and injurious effect" standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson [opinion] in a federal habeas proceeding when examining the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state court criminal trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision [PDF text], ruling that federal courts must apply the Brecht standard whether or not a state appellate court recognized that there was a constitutional error and reviewed it under the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard found in Chapman v. California [opinion]. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Scalia, along with a concurrence and dissent in part [text] from Justice Stevens and a second concurrence and dissent in part [text] from Justice Breyer.

[JURIST] A European Union human rights team expressed the EU's "deep concern" at the state of human rights in Bangladesh [JURIST news archive] under President Iajuddin Ahmed's interim government at the conclusion of a visit to the country Saturday, flagging reports of extra-judicial killings, torture and intimidation alleged to have taken place as part of the government's "anti-corruption campaign" [JURIST news archive]. The 10-member team headed by ambassador Andreas Michaelis urged the interim government, established in January following a declaration of a state of emergency [JURIST report], to proceed with the establishment of a promised human rights commission [JURIST report] and hold postponed elections as soon as possible.

The interim military-backed government has promised to hold new elections, but no date has yet been set. Its "anti-corruption campaign" has so far involved the questioning and detention of at least 60 parliamentarians and former government ministers. AFP has more.

[JURIST] Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court ruled Saturday against an American University of Cairo (AUC) [official website] ban on women wearing the Muslim niqab [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] on campus, finding that the private university could not require a plaintiff student to unveil her face because it was her constitutional right under Egyptian law to practice her religion. The court nonetheless said it would allow a mandatory identity check of veiled women by guards. AUC had enforced a complete ban by requiring students to check in their niqabs before being granted entry to the university for "security" reasons. AUC had allowed female students to wear the Muslim hijab [JURIST news archive], a headscarf leaving the face visible.

The petitioner, Iman Taha al-Zainy, a doctoral student, filed a legal challenge to the AUC's policy after being denied entry to the library in 2001 because she refused to remove her niqab. Al-Zainy won a lower court ruling, which the AUC appealed. BBC News has more. AFP has additional coverage.

[JURIST] The lower house of the parliament of Rwanda [government website; JURIST news archive] voted Friday to abolish the death penalty [JURIST news archive] effective July 1, with the hope that the measure will prompt other countries to extradite defendants facing trial for the 1994 Rwandan genocide [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] back to Rwanda. Although the final vote was 45-5, 30 members of the assembly were absent. The measure will commute death sentences to life in prison for 600-800 convicts who participated in the genocide.

The Rwandan genocide saw almost a million people murdered over a time span of 100 days. Many countries, including Tanzania, the current site of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website], would not extradite suspects back to Rwanda while the country retains the death penalty. Friday's parliament vote had the expected outcome, as Rwanda's ruling party approved abolition [JURIST report] of the death penalty in October and its cabinet did the same [JURIST report] in January. Reuters has more. BBC News has additional coverage.

[JURIST] The Zimbabwean government has published proposed amendments to the Constitution of Zimbabwe [PDF text] that would allow the simultaneous election of the president and both houses of legislature, reforms that critics allege to be an attempt by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe [BBC profile] to weaken the opposition. The proposed amendments would end the existing assembly's term two years early in 2008, reduce the president's term from six years to five, and increase the number of legislators in the House of Assembly from 150 to 210 and the Senate from 66 to 84. In addition, the number of House of Assembly members appointed by the president would decrease from 30 to 10, but the number of senators appointed by the president would go from 16 to 34. The government also proposed Saturday the creation of a "Human Rights Commission," which will consist of 16 members appointed by Mugabe and the parliament, which Mugabe's party, the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) currently controls.

Critics believe that the proposed amendments are the latest efforts by Mugabe to weaken the opposition amid rising discontent with the government. Mugabe, who implemented a controversial white-owned farm seizure program, has been blamed for causing a nation-wide famine and the inflation of over 976.4 percent [CIA backgrounder] as previously productive farms have become barren under inexperienced owners. In May, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the International Criminal Court [official website] to prosecute Mugabe for his role in Operation Murambatsvina [UN report, PDF], a coordinated effort by the government to remove unlicensed sellers and non-zoned homes from the streets of Harare in 2005. AFP has more.