Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
In the years since the global financial crisis, Africa has witnessed a rapid expansion of cross-border banking, led by banking groups based in Africa that are spurring financial and economic integration and transforming the continent's financial landscape. These institutions are occupying a space created by the retreat of several global bank groups from Africa in the wake of the crisis.
The expansion is evident across the region. African banks headquartered from Morocco to South Africa have each established business operations in at least 10 countries. Ecobank, headquartered in Togo—is present in more than 30 countries on the continent.
The banks have facilitated many positive changes—providing customers with new and better products and services, operating improved IT and management systems, and observing more advanced regulatory and accounting standards. But these groups also pose new challenges for African regulators and supervisors, with potential implications for economic and financial stability. Many of these challenges have been felt worldwide, particularly in Europe, necessitating a strengthening of banking regulation and a tightening of oversight.
It falls to African financial sector regulators and supervisors to rapidly address these new challenges. They are moving to upgrade supervisory procedures and practices by embarking upon unprecedented cooperation with peers across Africa—and with international supervisors, who are facing the same issues.
This complicated set of challenges was the topic of a conference on Cross-Border Banking and Regulatory Reforms: Implications for Africa from International Experience, held in Mauritius on February 1-2. The conference brought together more than 80 officials from Africa and Europe—including 12 African central bank governors—and bank chief executives, along with an IMF team led by Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
In opening remarks, the Managing Director spoke of the key need to ensure that supervision of bank holding companies takes place on a consolidated basis. This places an important burden on supervisors. It is also essential that supervisors in countries hosting systemically important bank subsidiaries are involved in the process by attending meetings of supervisory colleges and exchanging information.
“You face a delicate balancing act,” Lagarde said. “You need to enhance regulation and supervision but, in implementing global standards, you also must take into account local circumstances. Fortunately, you are not alone. The IMF and other bodies recognize the challenges you face and are committed to drawing on our global experience to assist you.”
The closed-door conference addressed the supervisory challenges of pan-African banking in detail, particularly the task of coordinating among economies that are at widely varying stages of financial sector development—and where bank subsidiaries are much more important—even highly systemic—to the local economies where they operate.
It is clear that these issues are not unique to Africa. In fact, many of the challenges—ranging from data-sharing to cross-border bank resolution—are common to advanced and emerging market economies.
So an important feature of the Mauritius conference was the participation of European supervisors who are grappling with the same challenges. The group was led by Stefan Ingves, Governor of the Swedish Central Bank and Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. In his speech on cross-border bank resolution, Ingves spoke to the issues that supervisors in the Nordic and Baltic countries have faced, particularly during and after the global financial crisis.
The IMF has played an important role in providing technical expertise to assist the efforts to develop effective cross-border regulation and supervision, including through the Fund's capacity development work. The conference was held at the Africa Training Institute, which along with the Mauritius-based AFRITAC South regional technical assistance centre and other regional centres, is deeply involved in this effort.
In his remarks, Ingves spoke to another role for the IMF in the cross-border banking work. “Besides being able to bring its expertise, let alone its financial muscles, to the table, the Fund often also plays an important role as a neutral third party,” he said.
Managing Director Lagarde, in her speech, spoke of the broader purpose of a stronger financial sector in Africa. “At the end of the day, a strong regulatory and supervisory setting can help ensure that healthy banks are able to provide the lifeblood of Africa's economic resurgence. This will be a long-term effort, and we will be with you every step of the way,” Lagarde said.
(Source: International Monetary Fund)
Neven Mimica, Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, was recently in The Gambia meeting the newly elected President Adama Barrow and his new Government.
Commissioner Mimica made the following statement: "The peaceful democratic change in The Gambia is the result of the determination of the Gambian people, as well as the regional and international coordinated efforts of the Economic Community of West African States. Gambians have shown commendable resolve, patience and courage during a period of high tension. The EU is fully committed to engage with President Barrow and his Government. We want to be a privileged partner of The New Gambia. In addition to the EUR 75 million package of immediate support signed today, we are already preparing a medium-term package of EUR 150 million, which will focus on building the capacities of the State and on job creation."
This visit is a clear signal of the EU's readiness to provide immediate financial and technical support to the democratic process in The Gambia and its dividends for the population in terms of good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The EU will also step up its support to sustainable and inclusive development of the country in close consultation with the new authorities. The EU is committed to support progress regarding democracy, human rights, good governance and sustainable and inclusive development.
The package of measures, amounting to EUR 75 million, was signed by Commissioner Mimica today. It comprises a project of EUR 10.5 million to reinforce access of the most vulnerable populations, including female-headed households, to markets and socio-economic facilities. This will be done through a feeder road rehabilitation programme. Further, a project of EUR 20.5 million will aim to create growth and employment opportunities, in particular for youth, as well as better access to food. A project of EUR 11.5 will seek to improve food security, e.g. through supporting the provision of food, cash, treatment of acute malnutrition as well as prevention of all forms of undernutrition. Under the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, The Gambia will benefit from a contribution of EUR 11 million aimed at increasing job opportunities for youth. Finally, interventions amounting to EUR 21.5 million in the areas of climate change, food security, support to civil society organisations, democracy and human rights, among others are also part of this first package.
Commissioner Mimica has also announced today the preparation of a second package of EUR 150 million, which will be made available for medium and longer-term actions in favour of the Gambian population. An EU technical mission is visiting Banjul to identify and discuss areas of mutual interest.
Background
The EU-Gambia partnership has helped deliver important development goals for The Gambia, including for example the paving of nearly 50% of the Gambian road network through projects funded by the European Development Fund. Relations have also flourished in other areas such as trade, fisheries and tourism.
The European Union's total allocation for the Gambia under the 11th European Development Fund (EDF) for the period 2014-2020 was set at EUR 150 million. It was decided to start with an initial envelope (EUR 33 million for 2015-2016) to support the development priorities of The Gambia, as defined in the "Programme for Accelerated Growth and Employment" (PAGE 2012-2016). The main sectors of the first phase are Agriculture for economic growth and food security/nutrition and Exit strategy to the transport sector. With the new government in place, the key priorities of the EU in terms of development cooperation include rapidly supporting stability and reconstruction of the Gambian State.
The Gambia also stands to benefit from the regional agenda of ECOWAS, whose priorities are focussed on five areas of intervention, notably, peace and security, infrastructure development, agriculture and resilience, common market and regional competiveness and capacity building.
The Gambia also benefitted from the Environment budget line. A Global Climate Change Action project is being implemented in the area of integrated coastal zone management and climate change. Interventions in the areas of food security, agriculture and rural development, job creation, in particular for youth and women, as well as actions to support civil society organisations, democracy and human rights, are currently ongoing.
The Gambia is eligible for the EU Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa. Since the Valletta Summit, two new actions have been adopted in favour of Gambia for a total of EUR 14,9 million aiming, among others, to offering economic opportunities and jobs to reinforce the capacity of youth.
(Source: European Commission)
Chief US District Judge of the Northern District of Texas recently issued a "stinging court defeat" to the lobbying arms of the big banks – the US Chamber of Commerce, Financial Services Institute, Financial Services Roundtable, Insured Retirement Institute, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association – by upholding the "Fiduciary Rule." Now, administrators in Washington announced they would delay implementation of the rule by 6-12 months and then seek to repeal it altogether.
"This is a shootout at the OK Corral," said Bill Harris, CEO of Personal Capital. "I was not there in Texas to witness the rule's heroic survival, but I am here today in Washington witnessing it's quick and efficient execution. And with its presumed death, so goes the retirement prospects of families across the nation. The only thing that gives me hope is Mark Twain's famous quip, 'rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated'."
The Fiduciary Rule requires firms providing retirement accounts to do so in the best interest of the customers, not of the firms themselves. The Department of Labor, which has jurisdiction over the retirement accounts of American workers, developed this "no conflict of interest" rule over six years with input from consumers and financial firms. It is scheduled to go into effect in April 2017.
Chief US District Judge Barbara Lynn upheld the rule, shooting down each seven challenges including that it limits the free speech of sellers of retirement accounts: "At worst, the only speech the rules even arguably regulate is misleading advice." The Labor Department prevailed over challenges from the financial industry. "Justice was done in Texas," said Harris. "As one of the only financial firms advocating for working families and retirees by supporting the Fiduciary Rule, Personal Capital applauds this courageous ruling."
Nevertheless, because of changing objectives in Washington, the Labor Department quickly reversed course and attacked its own rule – first requesting a stay of the Texas ruling and then announcing it would delay the rule's implementation. "The Labor Department – once a mighty gunfighter for the nation's 125 million workers – turned tail and ran in the face of Wall Street's artillery," said Harris.
Harris has spoken out before in support of the Fiduciary Rule and the benefits of Section 1033 of the Dodd Frank act. So have the clients of Personal Capital, over one thousand of whom have expressed strong opinions on the necessity of a rule protecting their financial future.
Fiduciary Rule Could Save 30% of Retiree's Nest Egg
Without the Fiduciary Rule, conflicts of interest will cost investors their hard-earned savings in commissions and high, often hidden, fees. Specifically, Wednesday's ruling quotes Federal Register Fiduciary Rule Definition:
"today's marketplace [commissions give]...advisers a strong reason, conscious or unconscious, to favor investments that provide them greater compensation rather than those that may be most appropriate for the participants...an ERISA plan investor who rolls her retirement savings into an IRA could lose 6 to 12 and possibly as much as 23 percent of the value of her savings over 30 years of retirement by accepting advice from a conflicted financial adviser."
Based on a study of Personal Capital users' own data and the fees they are currently paying, unnecessary fees and conflicted advice leads to over 30% fewer assets for their retirement. For the average Personal Capital user, this means hundreds of thousands less in retirement savings and a substantial reduction in retirement readiness.
Fiduciary Rule Protects Workers and Retirees
The Fiduciary Rule is also necessary to protecting investors who must make complex decisions about their own investments where the onus of securing a well-funded retirement is largely placed on the individual. Wednesday's ruling quotes the DOL in saying:
"[A]t the same time as individual investors have increasingly become responsible for managing their own investments, the complexity of investment products and range of conflicted compensation structures have likewise increased. As a result, it is appropriate to revisit and revise the exemption to better reflect the realities of the current marketplace."
Broker Incentives Must Be Changed
The bottom line is that without an appropriate fiduciary responsibility, most financial institutions have no reason to stop exploiting their customers’ inability to cope with the increasing complexity of investment products. The DOL has specifically reviewed studies conducted around mutual funds to assess the conflicts to consumers without a Fiduciary Rule:
"Broker-sold mutual funds provide an incentive to brokers to sell their products, but the record reflects that conflicted brokers "reinforce erroneous beliefs about the market" and "guide people towards high-fee funds."
(Source: Personal Capita)
Following recent news of the UK’s plans for an Apprenticeship Levy, by which the government aims to reach its target of three million apprentices by 2020, a City & Guilds survey reveals a third of UK businesses are unaware of the implications it will have on their costs and more. Here David Lynch, Managing Director of Bis Henderson Academy, reveals all you need to know to prepare.
In April, the government is to introduce a new ‘payroll tax’ in the form of an Apprenticeship Levy. Those businesses with an annual payroll bill in excess of £3 million will see their payroll costs increase next year by 0.5% - a substantial extra cost burden for any company affected, across the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.
However, despite the shock that this will be for many businesses there are opportunities too for these organisations to benefit from the levy, provided they seek to fully understand its implications early and plan well in advance.
The good news is the incremental tax raised on the total payroll bill will be returned to the employer through an online account, along with an uplift of 10% from the government. But there is a catch. The employer can only spend the money on the delivery of apprenticeship-based training offered through an approved training provider. And if the funds are not used after 18 months the money is taken away. So you need to be prepared.
To give an idea of the sums involved, if you take a company that employs a thousand people with an average salary cost of £30,000, then, on that £30 million payroll bill the business would pay a levy of £135,000 (after deducting a £15,000 allowance). With a 10% top-up from the government the employer would have £148,000 available.
The problem comes in realising the full value from this ‘lost profit’. Funding for apprenticeships varies considerably, but if we took an average of £2,000 per qualification (which would be correct for some basic-level programmes) then that company with a headcount of 1000 will need to have 74 apprentices next year, and every year thereafter, in order to fully utilise the funds. This is hardly going to be practicable as few companies, if any, are going to want to, effectively, turn their business into a sixth form college by taking on such a large number of school-lever-age young people every year. The profile of the workforce would be completely changed.
The way forward is for organisations to start thinking in terms of ‘funded development’. Businesses are going to need to consider where they can utilise apprenticeship-based training to complement their future needs and to replace some of their existing training budgets.
For many organisations this will require looking carefully at the current skills base and what core skills programmes they are involved in, whether at an operational, supervisory, management or even board level. The key will be in trying to reverse-engineer those training goals into what can be delivered using these new funded frameworks. And this may be across a raft of levels. It could be at the basic NVQ Level 2 or right the way up to a degree apprenticeship at level six or seven.
Importantly, it takes time to put frameworks in place, to identify the individuals and to assess each individual’s funding potential, because there are strict funding criteria – not everybody will be fundable. For instance, a candidate apprentice has to be resident in the UK for a minimum of three years to qualify under the scheme.
An interesting consequence of the Apprenticeship Levy will be the inevitable change in businesses’ views on graduate programmes. The complex rules of the scheme only allow funding for vocational courses. Could we start to see fewer jobs available to graduates with non-vocational degrees and more businesses deciding to use their levied funds to engage young people in vocational apprenticeship degree courses?
At the Bis Henderson Academy we are working with a number of organisations that are ahead of the curve on planning for the upcoming legislation, by helping them to fully understand the new scheme, their own skills needs for the future and the best strategy for delivering value from their levied funds.
Unlike taxes on profits this ‘tax on costs’ coming down the pipeline in April is something that can’t be massaged by accountants. The only choice for management will be, do you take the hit or do you try and make it work for you?
Health Canada is concerned about the dangers of unregistered pesticides being brought into Canada. Unregistered pesticides brought in from other countries have not been assessed for safety by the Department, and may not be labelled or packaged properly for safe use in Canada.
The current Pest Control Products Regulations allow pesticides (regardless of their registration status in Canada) to be imported into the country for personal use in or around the home when the pesticide is 500 g or 500 mL or less, and when the value is $100 or less. This means that small quantities of potentially highly toxic pesticides can be brought into and used in Canada. Such products can be dangerous and cause harm, including death, especially if used inappropriately.
Health Canada is proposing to revise the current personal use import exemption to prohibit certain unregistered pesticides from entering the country, in order to better protect the health, safety and environment of Canadians. Some of the proposed changes include only allowing imports of pesticides that are equivalent to a Canadian registered domestic product, with packaging and labelling in either English or French, and that are already authorized for use in another country. In addition, the proposed changes would mean that unregistered pesticides can no longer be imported via online purchases that are shipped to Canada.
Quick Facts
Pesticide labels have detailed instructions and warnings that must be followed to protect health and the environment.
(Source: Health Canada)
2016 has been a challenging year for the legal sector, with increasing court fees threatening the access to justice, and the Brexit vote introducing uncertainty. However, the Bar Council continued to campaign assiduously on behalf of the Bar, and to support the profession in delivering specialist advice and advocacy.
From establishing a Brexit Working Group, which lobbies on behalf of the profession for the free movement of lawyers, to campaigning for the independence of judiciary, or launching Wellbeing at the Bar, a website dedicated to supporting the profession on wellbeing and mental issues, the Bar Council was able to represent the Bar efficiently. You can see below our timeline for 2016, with some key examples of this work.
Click below to see the full highlights infographic.source: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk
The International Bar Association (IBA) calls for a halt to President Donald Trump’s undermining of the United States judiciary – and consequently the rule of law – through personal attacks on respected jurists. Following the unanimous decision of the judges of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, not to reinstate the President’s recently issued Executive Order entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior– which bans nationals travelling to the US from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – the IBA cautions against further diminishing public confidence in the vital institution of an impartial and independent judiciary.
IBA President Martin Šolc commented: “It is recognised that under the Constitution of the United States of America, it is the prerogative of the nation’s President to issue Executive Orders. Almost every US president has done so. However, where there is conflict between the desires of the President and upholding human rights, judges must be allowed to decide cases impartially, without fear, restriction or improper influence in accordance with their interpretation of the law and the facts. President Trump’s controversial travel ban is irrefutably such an instance.”
He added: “The rule of law, the centuries-old legal principle that law should govern a nation, is something that is being chipped away at each time President Trump publicly attacks and disrespects a judge. Not only is this demoralising for the individual who is the target of the contempt, but more widely it damages public confidence in the judicial system. For all the President’s statements opposing elitism, he needs to remember not to attempt to place himself above the law.”
A federal court judge in Seattle, Washington state, James Robart, imposed a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the ban which, among other things, suspended admission of refugees into the US for 120 days, prevented the entry of individuals from the seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and prioritised refugee applicants belonging to minority religious groups. The judge’s action earned him a stinging public rebuke from President Trump on the news and social networking service Twitter.
Lawyers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the attorney general for the state of Washington engaged in a court battle over whether the injunction should remain in place or be lifted immediately. On 7th February the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments, via telephone, from both parties. It was the first time DOJ lawyers had the opportunity to be heard, as the TRO was granted ‘ex parte’, that is, the plaintiffs made their case to Judge Robart without DOJ lawyers present.
The plaintiffs prevailed and the TRO will remain in effect while a broader court case questioning the ultimate constitutionality or legality of the travel ban advances.
IBA Executive Director Mark Ellis said: “The Ninth Circuit’s unanimous ruling states that the government failed to show an “urgent need” for the Executive Order to be reinstated immediately. This should be welcome news to all who value democracy and understand that judicial independence is one of the core values of a functioning justice system.”
He added: “Regardless of political affiliation, upholding the principles that enable independent determinations must be paramount. Further, the US President, though not having received the decision of his choice, should be reassured that, despite unrelenting public attacks, a component of the US judiciary held true to the oath sworn to safeguard the rule of law; an example which legal professionals everywhere should seek to emulate.”
(Source: IBA)
Last week we heard that NHS services throughout England will have a legal duty to charge foreign patients upfront, when treatment is non-urgent and not eligible to be free. If they cannot pay in advance, as of April 2017, overseas patients will have to forgo services, and be refused operations.
The announcement came from Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt during a media frenzy regarding the cost of tourists using the NHS, and overall aim is for the NHS to not have to chase costs of treatments for foreign service users.
On the back of this news, Lawyer Monthly reached out to a few experts in the field, who gave us their thoughts on the subject.
Marie Dancer, Managing Partner, Richard Nelson LLP and Medic Assistance Scheme:
Few would dispute that the NHS is at breaking point in terms of its capacity to provide the levels of care expected. The government has recently announced a new scheme of refusing non-urgent NHS treatment for patients who are not British or EEA nationals, unless the treatment is paid for in advance. Many express frustration at the extra burden being placed on NHS resources by so called ‘health tourists’.
A health tourist is someone who travels to the UK from out of the EEA, specifically to benefit from NHS treatment. Treatment for those in the EEA can be invoiced to the Department of Health for costs to be recouped from their governments under reciprocal arrangements. Whether this will continue post Brexit remains to be seen.
One of the real concerns is likely to be how NHS Trusts will identify in advance that patients are non-British or non-EEA and therefore required to pay for non-urgent treatment in advance. Given the diverse nature of our country, this is of course not achievable by sight of patients. Those requiring NHS treatment may in the future have to provide identification of their nationality. For most people that would not be problematic, as most people are able to provide a passport or a driving licence. However, neither of these documents are compulsory to hold and there will be many people, including those on the fringe of society, who arguably are the most vulnerable, who may not easily be able to provide satisfactory identification documentation. No-one wants to see vulnerable British people denied access to NHS treatment because of a scheme designed to relieve the NHS of the burden of international health tourists.
The second major question is who is going to be responsible for performing such identification checks on patients prior to their treatment. Doctor and nurses are not trained to make these assessments. Nor practically would this be desirable given the cost of their time. We would all prefer qualified healthcare professions focused on treating patients, rather than being bogged down by further paperwork relating to nationality assessments. Clearly such assessments are an administrative function. However, to exercise this function, in the short term, it will be necessary for NHS Trusts to expend money on this administrative function, through recruitment and training; before any cost savings will be seen. If indeed they will be, which will remain to be seen.
The third significant question, which is not a politically popular question, but is essential to consider, is whether it will in fact be more expensive to assess patients’ entitlement, process payments and deal with enforcement issues, then the scheme is designed to save.
Philip M.D. Grundy, Head of Catastrophic Injury, St John’s Buildings Barristers’ Chambers:
The issue of charging foreign patients is one of checks and balances, and is underpinned by a clash between the human, moral considerations and the economic facts at play. In my view, lawyers will be called upon by patients and their relatives in the future, unless the process is clear, understandable and simple.
Improved methods of reclaiming funds from foreign patients and countries is a logical avenue of discussion for a government seeking to relieve the increasing pressures on the NHS. The £140bn spent on the service last year is ten times higher than it was 60 years ago, even after adjusting for inflation, yet the UK is spending less of a percentage of GDP on healthcare than most EU countries. With staff seeing one million patients every 24 hours and attendances in A&E increasing by a third over the last 12 months, the pressure on the NHS is tangible.
With political rhetoric, certainly in the last twelve months at least, revolving around the unrealistic recovery of up to £500m in costs to the NHS, the topic of funding is a highly-charged one. Politicians in their quest for soundbites have hastened to claim that hundreds of millions of pounds can be recouped from abroad without any real consideration for how this can be sensibly and reasonably achieved. The reality is that the forecast is now for £346m to be charged, with the amount recovered a different figure.
The efficiency of reclaiming funds has been consistently below par in recent years, resulting in a clear disparity between the figures the NHS has been able to reclaim compared to what has been paid out. In 2014-15, the UK paid £674m to EU countries and Switzerland for the treatment of Britons abroad, but only received £49m in return. In the same year, Poland claimed £4.2m from the UK, yet paid out only £1.5m for NHS treatments – a drop in the ocean for a service costing £140bn last year alone. There can be little doubt that Brexit will change it still further.
Some hospital trusts have admitted they are not charging for services at all, while those that do generally have poor systems of recovery in place. There also exists some confusion about who should be paying for what. Charges determined by “ordinary resident”, not nationality, have created issues for hospitals, administrators, and medics, who have been burdened with the added responsibility of enforcing judgements on who should be charged for medical treatments. This, in many cases, could be for the Courts to determine.
The government’s latest proposals compound those issues. New legislation will see overseas patients that are not refugees or asylum seekers charged prior to treatments deemed ‘not urgent’. What constitutes ‘not urgent’, however, is unclear. This, again, is an issue that could well involve a Judge’s determination.
The idea that medical practitioners should have to make decisions on whether patients should give up their credit card details prior to treatment flies in the face of medics and administrators. It is an irresponsible and fractious approach that creates arguments about whether the patient is or isn’t a resident and whether their treatment is serious enough that no charge is incurred.
Instead, you could argue that travellers to the UK should have travel insurance. But that is perhaps too simplistic. Clearly government needs to provide a robust method of charging the country of origin – but more importantly, we need to have a simple, straightforward approach that isn’t a drain on valuable NHS resources with potential for legal costs.
A simple rule that clarifies if you are from abroad, you or your country pays would suffice. It is, after all, the mantra other EU countries operate under. We could have a bar code, akin to a supermarket, which records the services rendered, but that doesn’t help with entitlement to a “free” service or recoverability. Either way, this is something government is going to have to grapple with.
We would also love to hear Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
A poll of New Mexico business leaders found that less than one in five of them think the state is headed in the right direction. Executives voiced their concerns about the considerable influence of money in politics, campaign finance and lobbying, among other issues, and expressed overwhelming support for reforms to minimize unscrupulous activity. The poll was sponsored by the Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board (CED), a nonpartisan, business-led public policy organization, and conducted by Research & Polling, Inc.
251 business leaders from across the state were surveyed between December and January and identified the following areas of concerns:
"Today, states face unprecedented competition when it comes to keeping and securing economic opportunities," said Terri Cole, President and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce. "These findings reinforce why having a transparent, ethical New Mexico is a key part of the equation."
"New Mexico's business leaders want a level playing field – one where all have a fair shot at thriving in the marketplace," said Ray Sandoval, President, Santa Fe Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "Ridding the state of government favoritism and strengthening transparency will go a long way toward achieving a sound, balanced environment for job creation."
"Over the past three years New Mexico business leaders have become more critical about the overall direction that the state is heading, with the majority now feeling that things are heading on the wrong track," said Brian Sanderoff, President, Research & Polling, Inc. "Business leaders are becoming more concerned about the influence of money in politics and they continue to support having additional transparency in how political campaigns are financed."
New Mexico's business leaders were also asked to rate their level of support for proposals that the state Legislature may consider adopting. Consistent with the previous studies, the vast majority of leaders support each proposal tested. In fact, support for each proposal has risen since the previous studies.
"These findings reveal that business leaders overwhelmingly back practical solutions to address government favoritism," said Bryan Chippeaux, Chairman, Century Bank. "As just one example, those surveyed strongly support the creation of an independent ethics commission."
"These findings suggest that New Mexico's business community can serve as one of the state's most potent voices for improving transparency and ethics in government," said Simon Brackley, President and CEO, Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce.
"For New Mexico's economy to fire on all cylinders, the state needs a government with both greater transparency and ethics," said Ray Smith, President, Klinger Constructors. "In light of these findings, policymakers now have the blessing from one of the state's largest constituencies – the business community – to move forward with reform."
(Source: Committee for Economic Development)
A United Nations expert has called on the Government of Cameroon to restore internet services to predominantly English-speaking parts of the country which have been cut off in “an appalling violation of their right to freedom of expression.”
“I am particularly concerned at the tightening of the space for free speech at a time where its promotion and protection should be of the utmost importance,” said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, David Kaye.
His call follows reports that Cameroonians in the northwest and southwest regions, which are predominantly English speaking, have been unable to connect to the internet since 17th January. It also comes against a background of widespread protests against government policies which have reportedly marginalized the country's English-speaking population.
Cameroon has two official languages: French and English. But English speakers have long reported that they face discrimination and marginalization, and are excluded from top civil service positions and public services. They also complain their access to justice is limited because the majority of legislation and judicial proceedings are in French.
“A network shutdown of this scale violates international law – it not only suppresses public debate, but also deprives Cameroonians of access to essential services and basic resources,” said Mr. Kaye, urging the government to restore internet facilities immediately.
In 2016, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution which unequivocally condemned measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law, and called on all States to refrain from and cease such measures.
This followed the 2015 Joint Declaration of UN and regional experts in the field of freedom of expression, which stated that network shutdowns or internet ‘kill switches' are measures which can ‘never be justified under human rights law'.
The UN Special Rapporteur will continue to monitor developments in Cameroon closely, and is at the disposal of the authorities to provide assistance or advice as required.
(Source: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights)
