Saturday, June 27, 2015

Marikana: The day President Zuma added insult to injury

No fear No Favour No Lies.......






Greg Nicolson  SOUTH AFRICA  25 JUNE 2015  01:22








For two years, the Marikana Commission of Inquiry looked at the deployment of the police to Marikana and who was responsible for the death of 44 people. For three months, the country has waited for its findings and recommendations. Days before the report is due for release, President Jacob Zuma gave his view, a disaster for the public's trust in his ability to lead and act to ensure justice. By GREG NICOLSON.





Despite attacks in Parliament, a court challenge, and public outcry, it was Napoleon Webster who caused the latest public relations disaster for the presidency on Marikana. With his beard and camouflage fatigues, Napoleon is the Economic Freedom Fighters' Heckler-in-Chief in Gauteng. When Cyril Ramaphosa appeared at the Marikana Commission, Napoleon led the chorus, calling the deputy president a murderer, sell-out and “buffalo head”.
On Tuesday, Zuma was waxing on the potential need to reinstate Apartheid policing tactics if protests aren't peaceful, a headline on any other day, before Napolean did his thing, according to City Press. “Otherwise the culture of Apartheid that used violence to suppress people will have to be looked at again, and I don't want it. We don't want the police who must use violence because they are stopping violence,” Zuma said at the Tshwane University of Technology.
Napoleon: “They killed people in Marikana!”
“And those people in Marikana had killed people and the police were stopping them from killing people,” Zuma quipped.
In August it will be three years since the Marikana massacre. The Commission of Inquiry sat for two years and the president has had its report for almost three months. There's been no justice for any of the 44 people who died in that week of August 2012 (although hundreds of miners were arrested and allegedly tortured) and their relatives wait for Zuma to release the Marikana Commission's report, which he promised to make public at the end of June.
His comments were criticised for showing bias towards the police while country waits for the inquiry's version.
The presidency tried to spin Zuma out of the knot on Wednesday. “All the deaths should be equally condemned by all without being selective, as all lives are important and all families equally lost their loved ones in the tragic and painful incidents that occurred at Marikana,” Zuma said in a media statement condemning accusations he condones the deaths of the 34 people killed on 16 August.
The damage had been done. “These reckless remarks demonstrate that the president does not care about the families who had their loved ones ripped from them by a trigger-happy SAPS on that fateful day,” said the DA's Dianne Kohler Barnard. “Of even greater concern is the heinous remark Zuma made about Apartheid-era South Africa and using it as a threat by which to quell social dissatisfaction,” she added. “This is the same attitude that got us in[to] this Marikana mess in the first place.”
EFF spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said Zuma was releasing the report in piecemeal fashion and further traumatising the relatives of those who were killed. “This means Jacob Zuma has singlehandedly found the Marikana workers guilty of murder and thus condoned a death sentence on them before even their side of the story was heard. Zuma is saying it is correct that his police massacred workers in Marikana and we must accept a massacre as an act of crime prevention.”
The presidency struggled to defend its boss. It's easy to say all the killings should be condemned and in the past Zuma has expressed sympathy with all the victims and their relatives. But while the country is on edge, waiting for the release of the Marikana report, on Tuesday he was not neutral, nor sympathetic, not diplomatic. The presidency offered no valid explanation for what the president may have intended to say, so his statement, made while he only he has access to the report, suggests he believes in the simple view: “Those people in Marikana had killed people and the police were stopping them from killing people.”
In essence, his comments reflect the SAPS argument at the Marikana Commission, supported by characterising the miners as muti-crazed and hell-bent on violence. And yet police killed 37 of the 44 people who died that week. On Monday 13 August, the SAPS fired teargas (no one wants to own up to giving the order) into a crowd they had agreed to escort and in the chaos they caused the police killed three miners while the miners killed two cops. On 16 August, they rushed to implement a poorly developed plan, which even they expected might lead to deaths, failed to sufficiently use non-violent weapons, and killed 17 people at scene one, where they delayed medical attention for the injured.
Then, with bodies down, they continued the operation, pursuing miners to scene two, killing another 17, where evidence suggests many were killed in cold blood. Police commanders then congratulated their troops for representing the best of SA policing. During the inquiry the SAPS hid evidence from the Marikana Commission, pinned their hopes on a clearly unreliable “Mr X”, and distanced themselves from cops who wouldn't toe the line.
Those are just the footnotes. Before even discussing allegations that Lonmin used Cyril Ramaphosa to pressure ministers to get the police to end the strike with force, or the transcript that links the hasty implementation of the SAPS operation to political fears that Julius Malema would intervene, it's simplistic, even offensive, given what's now known, to simply say, “Those people in Marikana had killed people and the police were stopping them from killing people.”
Yet as the president appears to think the return of Apartheid-style policing should be an option, it's not surprising. Whatever the findings and recommendations of the Marikana report reveal, more than ever, it's now difficult to believe the Zuma is the man to act on them. DM
Photo: South African police check the bodies of striking mineworkers shot dead at the Wonderkop informal settlement near Marikana platinum mine, Rustenburg, South Africa, 16 August 2012. EPA/STR

DALY MAVERICK



COMMENTS BY SONNY COX




THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH PUT NOTHING ON THE TABLE.

THE SAPS POP'S DIVISION WAS BLAMED FOR THE MASSACRE.

ALL POLITICIANS WERE EXONERATED FROM ALL BLAME!

EVEN THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS PRESUMED INNOCENT OF ALL ACCUSATIONS!

THE MAN WHO HAD THE MOST BLOOD ON HIS HANDS....?

GOD SAVE SOUTH AFRICA!

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

SHAREMAX " Ruling by the Press Ombudsman Nova Property Group vs. Business Report








Nova Property Group vs. Business Report

Mon, Jun 8, 2015


Ruling by the Press Ombudsman

8 June 2015

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Dominique Haese, CEO of Nova Property Group and those of Roy Cokayne on behalf of Business Report.

Complaint

Nova Property Group (NPG) is complaining about an article in Business Report of 14 April 2015, headlined Sharemax ex-directors win appeal – Order to repay two investors set aside.

NPG complains that the following sentences were incorrect, defamatory, baseless and unnecessarily harmful to its reputation:

· “Sharemax’s collapse in 2010 was precipitated by the findings of a registrar of banks investigation, that Sharemax’s funding model contravened the Bank Act, becoming public knowledge. This led to new investments drying up and it being unable to make monthly payments to investors”; and

· “The registrar of bank laid criminal charges against Sharemax for alleged contraventions of the Banks Act in March 2012.”

Standing

There is a dispute, though, over the question of whether NPG has the standing to lodge a complaint over the article – an issue with which I need to deal first.

On 5 June 2015 I ruled that NPG was not a third party complainant due to its direct and manifold links to the other affected parties (NPG vs. Personal Finance) and therefore had the standing to complain on its own behalf.

This time, though, NPG was not mentioned in the article.

This prompts me to state (this time) that the complainant’s arguments are rather confusing – in a letter to Sharemax investors, dated 6 August 2013, Haese stated: “Of further importance is the fact that Sharemax Investments ceased its activities relating to the erstwhile ‘Sharemax Group’ during or about July 2010 and never had, does not have and never will have anything to do with the Nova Group…In particular, the shareholding in Sharemax Investments is not owned by the Nova Group or any individual associated with the Nova Group and never will be. Similarly, Sharemax Investments have no Page 7 shareholding in and does not own any assets of the erstwhile ‘Sharemax Group’ and Sharemax Investments has no shareholding in and does not own any assets of the Nova Group, and never will.”

Even should this be technically correct, it is not consistent with the thrust of Haese’s arguments in her complaint. Nevertheless, I (again) rule that Nova does have the standing to complain (as argued above).

The text

The article, written by Cokayne, said that Sharemax Investments and four of its ex-directors have successfully appealed against two determinations by the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Ombud, which held the company and directors jointly liable for reimbursing two people who had invested in a scheme promoted and marketed by Sharemax.

Analysis

The first sentence: “Sharemax’s collapse in 2010 was precipitated by the findings of a registrar of banks investigation, that Sharemax’s funding model contravened the Bank Act, becoming public knowledge. This led to new investments drying up and it being unable to make monthly payments to investors.”

In later correspondence, Haese says there has never been a legal finding of any kind that such a Banks Act contravention has ever occurred.

She also:

· requests proof from Business Report that the matter has led to new investments drying up and it (Sharemax) being unable to make monthly payments to investors. “Monthly returns continued to be paid to investor[s] pre and post the 311 Scheme sanctioning”; and

· denies that Sharemax has ever collapsed. “[Instead], Sharemax Investments, as promoter, ceased its business operations.”

Cokayne refers me to correspondence on 7 October 2010 by the Deputy Registrar of Banks, advocate Michael Blackbeard, who stated: “I hereby confirm that as a result of an investigation by the duly appointed inspectors this Office was satisfied that the funding models of Sharemax and 33 property syndication companies were in contravention of the Banks Act, which included the Zambezi and the Villa.”

He says during the scheme of arrangement application process, he posed further questions to Blackbeard. One of these questions, in November 2011, related to Sharemax property syndication schemes being pyramid schemes. In response, Blackbeard explained that it was the funding model that was illegal and that a finding had not been made that it was a pyramid scheme.

On 14 February 2012, Blackbeard responds to Cokayne, stating, “This Office has requested the managers to inform SAPS that we were satisfied that the funding models were in contravention of the Banks Act.”

He concludes that these statements justified his reporting, as it was based on the information provided to him by the Statutory Regulator.

My considerations

The issues, as raised by Haese, are whether:

· there is a legal finding of any kind that a Banks Act contravention has ever occurred;

· there is proof that the matter has led to new investments drying up and it (Sharemax) being unable to make monthly payments to investors; and

· Sharemax has collapsed.

Legal finding

Haese’s argument (that there has never been a legal finding that such a Banks Act contravention has ever occurred) is irrelevant – the sentence in dispute does not say that. It mentions the findings of a Registrar of Banks investigation (which is not in dispute).

Proof

Haese asks Business Report to provide proof that new investments were drying up – while she herself provides adequate proof to this effect. She says in her complaint: “The damage continuously being caused by [Business Report’s] incorrect and misleading reporting, has far reaching negative effects on the Nova Property Group.”

That alone, to my mind, justifies this aspect of the reportage.

I have asked Cokayne to substantiate the second part of this matter, namely that Sharemax was unable to make monthly payments to investors.

His attorney (Jacques Louw) responds as follows:


“The…statement is based partly on…Cokayne’s personal understanding of the background facts, partly on various previous articles written by financial journalists who have drawn the same conclusion, but also on…Haese’s own statements under oath in the application to place Sharemax under business rescue. In this regard, on 30 November 2011, Ms Haese said the following under oath in court proceedings:


“[Sharemax] has since been placed under Directive on 15 September 2010, been unable to raise finance for its ongoing business requirements, including service of claims of all of its known creditors.” (sic) [The investors in Sharemax were debenture creditors of the company.]


“Accordingly…Haese has under oath made substantially the same statement Mr Cokayne has mentioned in his article.”


Cokayne adds:


“Even before the Reserve Bank notice, [I] started receiving complaints from investors in Sharemax who did not receive payments on their debentures.

“In early September 2010, [I] asked the FAIS Ombud’s deputy if the latter’s office had received any complaints regarding non-payment of ‘dividends’. In a letter on 8 September 2010, the deputy FAIS Ombud confirmed the complaints. [I] wrote an article about these non-payments on 10 September 2010.

“The Registrar of Banks issued its directive on 15 September 2010 and appointed statutory managers to Sharemax on 16 September 2010. As stated by Haese in her affidavit for the business rescue application, this led to the drying up of investments and an inability to pay investors (creditors). However, the 15 September 2010 directive was the culmination of investigation by the Registrar of Banks following complaints received by the Registrar and investments (funding) were already reducing at that stage.

“I attach a copy of email correspondence between the FAIS Ombud and [me] in early September 2010 as well as [my] article of 10 September 2010, where he mentioned the non-payment to investors.”


This provides enough evidence for me to decide that the reportage on this issue was reasonable and fair.

Collapsed

Haese says Sharemax has merely ceased its business operations; Cokayne calls it a collapse.

The difference appears to be little more than semantic, as it depends on the perspective from which one looks at the matter. The end result is the same.

The second sentence: “The registrar of bank laid criminal charges against Sharemax for alleged contraventions of the Banks Act in March 2012.”

Haese writes in later correspondence, “Firstly, this never happened. Secondly, how could criminal charges be laid on anything that is ‘alleged’.”

She states “for the record” that the opinion of the Registrar of Banks that there was a contravention of the Banks Act was taken on review by the Sharemax group of companies. It was then mutually agreed not to go to court, pending the restructuring of the syndication. “[B]y agreement, the Section 311 Scheme of Arrangement was proposed and sanctioned. There was thus NEVER a legal finding of any kind, that such a Bank Act contravention had ever occurred.”

Cokayne says that, on 14 June 2012, Blackbeard wrote to him stating, “The two appointed inspectors/managers (Jaco Spies & Neels Alant) met with Col Makhubele on 9 March 2012 and reported the matter to him…”

On 9 October 2012 he asked the DPCI: Communication of the SAPS the following question: “I understand that the Hawks are investigating the allegations of fraud against Sharemax Investments and whether it operated a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. Can you confirm?” The SAPS formally responded by saying, “Yes. We can confirm an investigation is currently under way.”

Cokayne concludes that the statement in question was based on official communication to him and was “thus justified and factually correct”.

On 11 November 2011 Blackbeard wrote to Cokayne, saying: “The report…concludes that the funding model…does not comply with the rule[s] and regulations – and hence that is in contravention of the Banks Act, ie illegal deposit taking from members of the public as a regular feature of the business by a company [that] is not registered as a bank.”

On 7 October 2010, Blackbeard informed Cokayne as follows: “Illegal deposit-taking is a criminal offence in terms of the Bank Act”.

My considerations

The reportage was clearly based on (overwhelmingly credible) information, as cited above, and the reportage was therefore justified.

Finding

Cokayne has provided me with all the correspondence to which he referred. I am satisfied that he based the disputed statements on reliable evidence and that his reportage was justified. The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.

Johan Retief

Press Ombudsman













Why Sharemax deserves a death blow

Mar 08 2011 06:49 Vic de Klerk

Related Articles

Sharemax uncertainty nearing end

Vontas still eyeing Sharemax

Sharemax: The Villa may be saved

Sharemax investors face disaster

Sharemax investors get a break

Glimmer of hope for some Sharemax investors


.......................... >>>>>

IT’S TIME for the coup de grâce for Sharemax and its property syndications. For its thousands of investors… please put them out of their misery.

Declare the whole business model an illegal practice and use a general liquidation to start the process of recovering assets from all those who benefited from this illegal scheme – from the advisers who sold the products to the shareholders in Sharemax Investments, who derived considerable financial benefit from the illegal scheme over the years.

Investors and the entire financial community now need “closure”. Unfortunately, they’ll also have to accept that – at best – the investments in Sharemax aren’t going to realise more than 20c in the rand.

It will be some consolation to investors to know all those who benefited from this illegal business practice will lose their profit and luxurious lifestyle – through the orderly liquidation of the entire group, hopefully at the insistence of the SA Reserve Bank, which in any case has the final say via its two statutory managers, Neels Alant and Jaco Spies.

The past week or two was a rather tense time for the Sharemax group. The new “independent” board – with former Judge Hartzenberg and Dawie Roodt as its spokesperson – tried hard to convince investors – with whom nobody is actually communicating and who don’t have any statutory or other say in what happens – to follow a 311 scheme of arrangement route rather than liquidation.

Of course, the people they have to convince are Alant and Spies, plus Deputy Registrar of Banks Michael Blackbeard, who has become saddled with the Sharemax problem.

On the other hand, there are one or two lawyers in Pretoria who are very keen to place Sharemax and all its syndications under judicial management or liquidation.

Once again, it looks as if the Reserve Bank has the power to put a stop to that, if it likes.

In brief, the difference between a 311 scheme and the process of declaring it an illegal business – which would involve compulsory repayment of all monies to the original investors – is as follows.

But no matter which way it goes, there’s no magic wand to wave that will save the investors, mostly elderly Afrikaans-speakers, from considerable losses.

* For more of Vic de Klerk on Sharemax, click here. Applicable only if you are a subscriber to Finweek’s print edition.

* If you are not a subscriber to Finweek’s print edition, click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




FSB soothes worried Sharemax investors after Frontier warning

"The Hawks confirmed last October that it was investigating allegations that Sharemax had committed fraud. - Business Report"

October 28 2013 at 08:00am
By Roy Cokayne
Comment on this story

BR Sahremax 182 Independent Newspapers




The Villa was a Sharemax mall development. Frontier Asset Management is the successor to Sharemax. Photo: Simphiwe Mbokazi

Johannesburg - The Financial Services Board (FSB) has stepped in to calm the fears of investors in Sharemax Investments after Frontier Asset Management seemingly tried to intimidate them into not lodging complaints against their financial advisers.

Frontier Asset Management is the successor to Sharemax Investments and has some common directors, including Dominique Haese, the former financial director of Sharemax and now chief executive of Frontier Asset Management.

Haese is also the chief executive of Nova Property Group, an entity established through a restructuring of Sharemax.

The FSB said on Friday it found it necessary to comment on a circular issued in August by Frontier to debenture holders and shareholders who had acquired their rights in terms of schemes of arrangement involving Sharemax companies.

In the letter, signed by Haese, investors were warned that should they persist in seeking repayment of their investments in Sharemax via the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) ombud, they “may have chosen to abandon and repudiate” their interests in Nova.

Haese also claimed that Sharemax Investments “ceased its business activities relating to the erstwhile Sharemax Group during or about July 2010 and never had, does not have and never will have anything to do with the Nova Group”.

The FSB said the circular may be read as suggesting the FAIS ombud no longer had jurisdiction to deal with complaints of former Sharemax investors not only against the Sharemax companies themselves but also against their directors or functionaries.

In addition, the FSB said the circular suggested that pursuing claims through the offices of the FAIS ombud may be interpreted as these claimants having abandoned and repudiated their claims arising from the schemes of arrangement.

The FSB warned that views on these issues were still subject to adjudication by the FSB Appeal Board and, until this had been decided on, it advised investors to consult their legal representatives before taking a decision on the matter.

It added that a number of determinations by the FAIS ombud had been made against Sharemax, persons or entities associated with it and independent intermediaries who had advised their clients to invest in the Sharemax product.

“Many of these determinations have been taken on appeal to the FSB Appeal Board, where they are still pending. In one such instance the chairman of the appeal board has granted leave to appeal.

“The FSB is trying its best to have this appeal heard as soon as possible. However, nothing prevents any former investor in Sharemax from lodging a complaint with the FAIS ombud against any party considered to be liable for any loss suffered,” it said.

Frontier directors proposed the scheme of arrangement to debenture holders and shareholders after Sharemax collapsed in August 2011, after an investigation by the registrar of banks found its funding model contravened the Banks Act. This led to new investments drying up.

About 40 000 investors invested about R4.5 billion in the various schemes promoted by Sharemax, which was placed under statutory management by the registrar of banks with the managers given a mandate to manage the repayment of funds obtained by Sharemax in contravention of the Banks Act or to seek legal alternatives.

The schemes of arrangement involving Sharemax companies were sanctioned by the high court in January despite the 2010 finding by a registrar of banks investigation.

The registrar of banks only laid criminal charges against Sharemax in March last year.

The Hawks confirmed last October that it was investigating allegations that Sharemax had committed fraud. - Business Report


Sunday, June 7, 2015

Fifa corruption scandal: Morocco won 2010 World Cup before votes were 'rigged' - reports


Fifa corruption scandal: Morocco won 2010 World Cup before votes were 'rigged' - reports


The Independent

Adam Withnall

07/06/2015


The Western Stormers' players win a lineout during their Super 15 rugby union match against NSW Waratahs, at the Allianz Stadium in Sydney, on May 16, 2015

Stormers eye South Africa Super Rugby title


Tomas Berdych (R) takes a 'selfie' with fellow tennis players (L to R) Roger Federer, Stan Wawrinka, Novak Djokovic, Kei Nishikori, Andy Murray, Milos Raonic and Marin Cilic at the O2 Arena in London November 7, 2014. The men's ATP World Tour tennis finals take place at the O2 Arena from Sunday for a week.

Selfies in sport





FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images: Sepp Blatter  © FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images Sepp Blatter Morocco actually won the ballot to host the 2010 World Cup before votes were "deliberately miscounted" and it was awarded to South Africa, according to extraordinary new claims of corruption at Fifa.

Secret video tapes, allegedly first shown to the governing body five years ago and published this weekend by the Sunday Times, reportedly show the then-Fifa executive committee member Ismail Bhamjee making the claims to an undercover reporter.

Bhamjee alleges that he discussed the ballot with colleagues and realised that, based on whom they all voted for, "we found out that actually Morocco won by two votes". He tells the reporter that officials, who tallied the votes in secret, could have "deliberately miscounted" before adding "Please, this is very secret."

Related: Documents 'show Fifa bribe payments'

South Africa denied the claims. The country's sports ministry has in the past week also denied allegations from US investigators that it paid $10 million to the former Fifa executive Jack Warner to secure votes from Caribbean delegates.

The Sunday Times reported that it had handed the tapes to Fifa executives including its president, Sepp Blatter, five years ago, alleging that the organisation's highest-ranking officials were made aware of the claims.

In a statement to the newspaper, Fifa said: "It cannot have escaped even the Sunday Times' attention that these matters are being investigated by the proper authorities, i.e. government agencies not newspapers. And Fifa is fully cooperating with these investigations."

The undercover tapes also appear to show Bhamjee claiming that Morocco paid a bribe of more than $1 million to Warner, then the president of Concacaf. He alleges Warner changed his vote at the last minute to South Africa "because they offered him more money". Contenders to replace Sepp Blatter as Fifa president

Describing how the ballot for the 2010 World Cup worked, he claims he and some other executive committee members "go in there, without our cellphones, and vote".

"We put it in, where the attorney general or somebody and an accountant and the secretary general they go and they say they found a winner and announce it there," he said.

Related: Dear Europe, No, you can’t have ‘your’ football back, signed Africa

"Morocco actually won the vote to host the World Cup... but Blatter [inaudible] the whole thing."

The Sunday Times said it had filmed the four former Fifa officials in 2010, speaking openly about the vote which apparently saw South Africa win comfortably by 14 votes to 10 in May 2004.

The FBI is investigating Blatter as part of its probe into alleged widespread corruption which has resulted in the arrest of 18 current or former Fifa officials. Blatter himself, who has said he will stand down as president, has not been charged with any wrongdoing and maintains that he is working "to root out any wrongdoing in football".

Former Concacaf president Warner has been indicted by the US and is currently released on bail after handing himself in to the police in Trinidad and Tobago. He denies the allegations, but warned in a TV address that he has documents proving an "avalanche" of secrets which he will reveal.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Gloves off as Former FIFA VP vows to tell all


His address on Wednesday came hours after American Chuck Blazer, another former FIFA executive committee member, admitted taking bribes relating to a range of tournaments, including the 1998 and 2010 World Cups.


eNCA 04/06/2015

Gloves off as Former FIFA VP vows to tell all

Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups

Fifa whistleblower Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups



web_photo_ Jack Warner: Former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, a central figure in world soccer's deepening scandal, has vowed to tell investigators all he knows about corruption within the sport's governing body.  © EPA/GARY I ROTHSTEIN Former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, a central figure in world soccer's deepening scandal, has vowed to tell investigators all he knows about corruption within the sport's governing body.

PORT OF SPAIN, TRINIDAD - Former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, a central figure in world soccer's deepening scandal, has vowed to tell investigators all he knows about corruption within the sport's governing body.

In a paid political address entitled "The gloves are off" broadcast in Trinidad and Tobago late on Wednesday, Warner said he feared for his life, but would reveal everything he knows.

He said he had instructed his lawyers to contact law enforcement officials both in his homeland and overseas.

"There can be no reversal of the course of action I've now embarked upon," said Warner, a prominent local politician and businessman.

He said some of the documents he had related to financial dealings with FIFA, some of which are being investigated by US authorities. But he also said he had documents linking FIFA with the 2010 Trinidad and Tobago government elections.



"I have kept quiet, fearing this day might come. I will do so no more."


"I will no longer keep secrets for them who actively seek to destroy the country," he said.

Warner is among more than a dozen officials charged by the US Department of Justice with running a criminal enterprise that involved more than $150 million in bribes.

Prosecutors say Warner solicited bribes worth millions and charged him with offences including racketeering and bribery.

His address on Wednesday came hours after American Chuck Blazer, another former FIFA executive committee member, admitted taking bribes relating to a range of tournaments, including the 1998 and 2010 World Cups.

Hawks will probe Fifa bribe allegations


Chuck Blazer forfeited $1.9m when he pleaded guilty, and is due to pay more to the authorities when he is sentenced.



Mail&Guardian 04/06/2015

Jenni Evans

Hawks will probe Fifa bribe allegations

A request from an opposition party has prompted the Hawks to begin a preliminary investigation into the $10-million Fifa bribe.

The Hawks will conduct a preliminary investigation into allegations that SA Football Association (Safa) head Danny Jordaan was involved in the funneling of a $10-million bribe to host the 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa.

Hawks spokesperson Brigadier Hangwana Mulaudzi on Thursday said this decision came after a request from an opposition party.

"The Freedom Front Plus came to us on Tuesday and dropped off some documents demanding that we look at them," said Mulaudzi.

"We are going to have a preliminary investigation based on the information they have given us," he said.

"If there is enough to open a case we will do it."

He said the right to request an investigation on anything was available to any member of the public, or political parties.

Related: Fifa whistleblower Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups

They had not been approached by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or US authorities on the controversy yet.

He said that the FF Plus said their request was based on information they claim to have regarding Safa officials.

Asked whether the Hawks had initiated its own parallel investigation, he said the specialist police unit did not have jurisdiction, but if Parliament's justice cluster decided it was necessary, it would do so.

FF Plus said its parliamentary spokesperson on sport, Anton Alberts, had received confirmation on Wednesday that the Hawks would investigate.

Alberts had asked that the Hawks examine allegations that Jordaan, who was recently appointed Nelson Mandela metro mayor allowed $10-million to be paid to the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf).

"He said the Hawks confirmed that the investigation would be done in conjunction with the American Authorites and the FBI, which are already investigating," FF Plus said in a statement on its website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mbalula not changing his tune



Kagiso
By news NOW .MSN
Mbalula not changing his tune  © Getty Images Mbalula not changing his tune

SAFA had initially informed the media that members of the 2010 LOC would address the media on the allegations that have been made against them, but the press conference was only attended by the Minister and Director General Alec Moemi.

Mbalula explained that those who were seeking answers from the LOC would not get answers, as the LOC was disbanded following the hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

The Minister said the $10-million that US authorities claim was a bribe paid by the LOC was an approved payment to support football development in the Concacaf region through the African diaspora programme.

“The fact that a payment of $10 million was made to an approved programme above board does not equate to bribery,” he said. “Those who allege should prove their allegations.

“We refuse to be caught up in a battle of the United States authorities and Fifa.”

Mbalula continued his defence of the county’s 2010 World Cup bid, saying that the sports ministry frowned upon the allegations made by the US.

"We indicated that we stand by our statement that the government of the Republic of South Africa has not bribed anyone to secure the rights of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. We also indicated that we frown upon the allegations that suggest that South Africa has paid the bribe. We also clarify that payments made for approved projects can never be construed as bribery."

Fifa whistleblower Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups


Fifa whistleblower Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups


Blazer forfeited $1.9m when he pleaded guilty, and is due to pay more to the authorities when he is sentenced.






Former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, a central figure in world soccer's deepening scandal, has vowed to tell investigators all he knows about corruption within the sport's governing body.

Gloves off as Former FIFA VP vows to tell all


Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups  © Associated Press Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups
An American former Fifa executive cooperating with the FBI on a major corruption inquiry has admitted that he and other members of the all-powerful executive committee were bribed in return for voting for South Africa’s bid for the 2010 World Cup.

Chuck Blazer, a 70-year-old soccer chief, made the admission in testimony to a New York judge in 2013 which was made public on Wednesday.

“I and others on the FIFA executive committee agreed to accept bribes in conjunction with the selection of South Africa as the host nation for the 2010 World Cup,” Blazer told the judge in a secret court session in November 2013.

Blazer, whose decision to assist the FBI appears to have been a critical breakthrough for the investigation now engulfing world football’s governing body, has been assisting federal agents since.

Formally entering a guilty plea during the hearing at New York’s eastern district court, Blazer told the judge his involvement in the acceptance bribes in connection with the South Africa bid began “in or around 2004 and continuing through 2011”. In a nod to a wider top-level conspiracy at Fifa, Blazer added: “My actions described above had common participants and results.”

South Africa won the right to stage the 2010 World Cup in 2004, after missing out on the 2006 tournament to Germany in controversial circumstances. But according to last week’s indictment from the US Department of Justice, payments continued after the bid was won.

Blazer, an eccentric power broker for American soccer for decades, and a member of the Fifa executive committee for six years until 2013, also admitted in the court facilitating the payment of a bribe relating to the 1998 World Cup.

Last week’s indictment alleges a bribe for Morocco’s failed bid was paid to Jack Warner, the president of the Concacaf, when Blazer was effectively working as his deputy.

The fallout from the US investigation into Fifa has led to an unprecedented crisis for the governance of world football, forcing the dramatic resignation on Tuesday of Fifa’s long-time president, Sepp Blatter.

Earlier on Wednesday, Reuters reported that the FBI, which along with Swiss authorities arrested numerous Fifa officials in Zurich last week on corruption charges, is investigating the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar.

Blazer’s guilty plea to a slew of charges including racketeering, wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering, income tax and banking offences was revealed last week, on the same day as 17 other Fifa officials and marketing executives were charged with similar crimes.


However the specifics of his court testimony, which took place behind locked doors because of the potential damage to the FBI’s investigation in the event of a leak, remained sealed. The transcript was released on Wednesday following a petition from three New York-based reporters.

It revealed how the judge in the case, Raymond Dearie, referred to Fifa as a “racketeering influenced corrupt organization”, the same terminology used in cases of organised crime, and only allowed the hearing to proceed after the Brooklyn courtroom had been locked.


Concacaf general secretary Chuck Blazer during the Preliminary Draw of the 2014 FIFA World Cup at Marina Da Gloria  © Getty Images Concacaf general secretary Chuck Blazer during the Preliminary Draw of the 2014 FIFA World Cup at Marina Da Gloria
Entering his plea, Blazer then detailed the long list of events and marketing contracts on which he and others took kickbacks.

“Beginning in or about 1993 and continuing through the early 2000s, I and others agreed to accept bribes and kickbacks in conjunction with the broadcast and other rights to the 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2003 Gold Cups,” he told the judge.

Blazer is now known to have abused his position to fund an extraordinarily lavish lifestyle, with two apartments in New York’s Trump Tower – one reputedly for his cats. Nicknamed “Mr Ten Percent” after the personal commission he demanded for his facilitation of corporate deals, much of his wealth was concealed in offshore accounts.

Between 2005 and 2010, he did not even file income tax returns with the US Internal Revenue Service.

He documented his travels around the world on Fifa and Concacaf business on his personal blog, in which he waxed lyrical about dinners in the finest restaurants and posted pictures of his meetings with heads of state and celebrities. The blog includes picture of him on a private jet with the late South African leader Nelson Mandela, and a detailed account of a 2010 encounter with Vladimir Putin who, he said, told him he looked like Karl Marx.

Blazer is now receiving treatment in a New York hospital, where he is recovering from extensive treatment for colon cancer. He was apprehended by federal agents working for the FBI and IRS in November 2011 as he drove a mobility scooter to an upmarket Manhattan restaurant.

“We can take you away in handcuffs now – or you can cooperate,” one of the agents told Blazer, according to a report in the New York Daily News.

Faced with demands for millions in unpaid taxes on commissions he had taken from broadcasting contracts, Blazer agreed to plead guilty and blow the whistle on other top Fifa executives.

He appears to have worked for a sustained period of time as an FBI informant, collecting evidence now at the heart of the emerging prosecution. During the 2012 London Olympics, for example, Blazer is even said to have secretly recorded meetings with several Fifa colleagues using a keyfob with a hidden microphone.

Blazer, who pleaded guilty in 2013, was general secretary of Concacaf for 21 years during the period when the Trinidadian Jack Warner was president.

The controversial Warner was also named in last week’s explosive indictment from the US Department of Justice that alleged a “World Cup of fraud”.


That document showed that Warner was the recipient of the bribe referred to by Blazer in his testimony, relating to Morrocco’s failed bid for the 1998 World Cup.

Jeffrey Webb, Warner’s successor and a Fifa vice president who had pledged to clean up Concacaf, was also among those charged and one of seven senior executives arrested in dawn raids in Switzerland last week ahead of Fifa’s Congress.

The alleged bribe relating to the award of the 2010 World Cup was seen as one of the factors that led Blatter to this week stand down after 17 years running world football’s governing body, just days after he was re-elected for a fifth term.

The alleged payment to Warner from South Africa’s World Cup organising committee was deducted at source by Fifa and paid to a Bank of America account linked to Warner, according to US prosecutors.

South African football officials insisted on Wednesday that there was nothing improper in their conduct and Jerome Valcke, the Fifa secretary general who is Blatter’s right hand man and was proved to have knowledge of the payment, also insisted he had nothing to hide.

The Department of Justice said last week that Blazer faces a maximum 20 years’ incarceration in a US prison for the conspiracies, 10 for the failure to declare his foreign bank accounts, and five years for the tax evasion charges.

It said Blazer had pleaded guilty to receiving $750,000 from Jack Warner, part of Blazer’s agreed $1m share of the $10m paid to Concacaf by Fifa, after Warner agreed to vote for South Africa to host the 2010 World Cup.

Blazer forfeited $1.9m when he pleaded guilty, and is due to pay more to the authorities when he is sentenced.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Moord in 1995: ‘Hy lyk verlig oor arrestasie’

 24 Mei 2015 - RAPPORT JANA VAN DER MERWE



http://www.netwerk24.com/nuus/2015-05-24-kyk-toe-kyk-hy-vir-my-en-ek-kyk-vir-hom-en-toe-skiet-hy-my-pa




KYK: ‘Toe kyk hy vir my. En ek kyk vir hom. En toe skiet hy my pa’

Deur Jana van der Merwe Sondag 24 Mei 2015 05:10

Vrou sal kaper se gesig nooit vergeet
Die oomblik toe Samantha Bennett ná al die jare weer in die oë van haar pa se vermeende moordenaar kyk, sal haar altyd bybly.
Net soos daardie oomblik toe haar pa, Lee (46), twee dekades gelede reg langs haar op die inrit van hul huis in Parkmore, Sandton, met ’n enkele skoot in die kop doodgeskiet is.
Samantha (29), wat die afgelope week van Engeland gekom het om teen die vermeende kaper te getuig, was destyds ’n blonde sproetgesigmeisie van tien jaar oud.
Die dag ná haar roerende getuienis in die hooggeregshof in Johannesburg het sy in ’n openhartige onderhoud met Rapport vertel oor haar besluit om die verlede te konfronteer.
“Dit het my ’n bietjie siek laat voel toe ek hom sien, maar dit was goed op ’n manier, want ek was bekommerd hy gaan anders lyk en dat ek hom nie gaan onthou nie. Maar toe ek hom sien, het dit my dadelik teruggeneem na daardie aand,” sê sy.
“Ek het nooit die knal van die skoot vergeet nie, ek het nooit die reuk vergeet nie, nie my pa se bloed op my skoot óf al die glas nie . . .”
Die pa en dogter het die aand in hul blou Nissan Sani-4X4-bakkie van ­Samantha se gimnastiekklas teruggekeer. Toe hulle by hul inrit indraai, het die aanvallers toegeslaan.
Samantha vermoed hulle het nie besef daar is ’n kind in die voertuig nie.
“Toe kyk hy vir my. En ek kyk vir hom en toe skiet hy my pa,” het sy getuig oor die oomblik waarop haar lewe soos wat sy dit geken het, verpletter is.
Oudspeurders van die destydse Brixtonse moord-en-roofeenheid het ook die afgelope week getuig.

Ao. Billy Cox, wat Samantha se verklaring kort voor middernag in die Bennetts se huis afgeneem het, het selfs nog sy sakboekie met sy notas van destyds by hom in die hof gehad.
Oudbrig. Piet Byleveld het getuig hoe die jong Samantha sonder aarseling in 1996 vir Martin Ngema op ’n uitkenningsparade as haar pa se skieter uitgewys het.
Samantha se ma, Sally, het dieselfde jaar nog met Samantha en haar ouer broer na Engeland geïmmigreer om ’n nuwe lewe te bou.
Tot in 2013 het hulle geglo Ngema is in die tronk aan vigs dood.
Maar in werklikheid het hy in 1997 al uit die tronk ontsnap, kort voordat sy verhoor sou begin.
Die staat voer aan hy het ná sy ontsnapping sy eie doodsertifikaat vervals en sy identiteit verander.
“Wyle” Martin Nkosenye Ngema het glo “Alfred Sibusiso Ngema” geword.
In November 2013 het die polisie “Alfred Ngema” in Vryheid, KwaZulu-Natal op ’n klag van roekelose en nalatige bestuur aangekeer en ontdek sy vingerafdrukke stem ooreen met die van Martin Ngema wat destyds in die kapers se wegkommotor gevind is.
Ngema was teen dié tyd ’n suksesvolle motorverkoopsman.
Die nuus was ’n skok vir Sally Bennett en sy het maande gewag voordat sy haar kinders daarvan vertel het.
“Ek het net gedink, wat is die punt? Dit gaan nie hul pappa terugbring nie,” sê sy. Maar toe Samantha hoor sy kan in die hofsaak getuig, het sy dadelik ingestem.
“Ek wil hê hy moet tronk toe gaan. Hy verdien nie om ’n normale lewe met sy gesin te hê nie. Hy het ons ­lewens verwoes.”
 Ngema ontken skuld op aanklagte van moord, poging tot roof met verswarende omstandighede, die onwettige besit van ’n vuurwapen en ammunisie en die besit van gesteelde goe­dere.

RAPPORT REDAKSIE - A/o Billy Cox - vernedering...? Ek was Piet Byleveld se Superior! 21 November 1995 was ek n Speurder Luitenant......in bevel van die moord toneel! Ek het uit die SAPD op 31 Januarie 1997 as Speurder Kaptein uitgetree? Waar is die feite? Geen RAPPORT meer vir my nie, DANKIE!
EK HOOP DIE BESKULDIGDE IS NOG OP MAANDAG 25 MEI 2015 NOG VOOR DIE HOF!


A/o Billy Cox - vernedering...? Ek was Piet Byleveld se Superior! 21 November 1995 was ek n Speurder Luitenant......in bevel van die moord toneel! Ek het uit die SAPD op 31 Januarie 1997 as Speurder Kaptein uitgetree? Waar is die feite? Geen RAPPORT meer vir my nie, DANKIE!
EK HOOP DIE BESKULDIGDE IS NOG OP MAANDAG 25 MEI 2015 NOG VOOR DIE HOF!

Hi Billy,

Ons stel dit reg, ook dadelik op ons webwerf. Ek vra om verskoning vir die fout.


Jana



DIE SAAK DUUR VOORT OP MAANDAG 25 MEI 2015.