Thursday, April 9, 2015


No Fear No Favour No ISIS Terrorists please......

JOHANNESBURG 9th APRIL 2015  10:30

A Cape Town girl (15) was taken off a flight on Sunday after it was discovered she’d been recruited by Isis.

FILE: Iraqi Sunni and Shiite fighters pose for a photo with an Islamic State group flag in the Al-Alam town, northeast of the Iraqi city of Tikrit, on March 17, 2015 after recapturing the town from IS fighters earlier in the month. Picture: AFP.

JOHANNESBURG – As concerns grow about the Islamic State (Isis)targeting young, vulnerable South Africans, community members in Mayfair have called on authorities to find Isis sympathisers in the area. 

They say they recently spotted a car driving around the community bearing the group’s flag.

On Sunday, a 15-year-old Cape Town girl was taken off a flight bound for Johannesburg after it was suspected that she was meeting an Isis recruiter. 

The teenager was tracked all the way to her first-class seat after she’d left her family home with her passport and cash.

The girl apparently went missing on Sunday morning and airportauthorities were alerted.

Somali Community Board chairperson Amir Sheik says this should not be treated as an isolated incident. 

“The scenario of the young lady in Cape Town who was intercepted and what happened in Kenya last week is something that leaves the community saying if there are certain people amid us, we’re not safe.”

Meanwhile, the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) says educating youths around the dangers of radicalism and militant groups has become a top priority.

The council held a workshop this week to raise awareness around the issue. 

The MJC’s Nabewiyah Mallick says, “We can’t be naïve about the fact that Isis is recruiting youngsters. The MJC felt that we have a responsibility to guide the community and share our concerns and information on Isis.”

(Edited by Tamsin Wort)
Eye Witness News


While Zuma and the SA Government are paying Mercenaries to fight ISIS in North Africa and elsewhere....
They have crept through the back door and taken up positions in Mayfair, Fordsburg and elsewhere in SOUTH AFRICA!

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Mugabe takes a jab at Cecil John Rhodes statue

No Fear No Favour No Bob Mugabe........

National 8.4.2015 04.48 pm

SADC Chairperson and President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe delivers his speech during the Farewell Gala Dinner hosted by the outgoing President of the Republic of Namibia H.E. Mr Hifikepunye Pohamba and Mrs Pohamba at the Safari hotel in Windhoek. (Photo: DoC)

“We in Zimbabwe had forgotten about Cecil Rhodes until South Africa said it has his statue in Cape Town, where he was the minister of the Cape and mischievously wanted to also take control of Zimbabwe,” said Mugabe. ”We have his corpse, you can keep his statue,” he added, causing South African President Jacob Zuma and the twenty cabinet ministers from both governments to break in laughter.
Mugabe arrived in South Africa on Tuesday on an official visit, accompanied by ten of his cabinet ministers and his wife Grace. Rhodes’ statue, situated within the campus of the University of Cape Town, has been the subject of national dialogue after students staged protests, demanding that it be removed.
This was followed by protests and the defacing of other statues of colonialists and apartheid-era figures across the country. Rhodes is buried at the “View of the World” hill in the Matopo district in Zimbabwe, reportedly in keeping with his final will. Mugabe said Zimbabwe was looking after Rhodes.
“I don’t know what you want us to do with him…do you think we should dig him up? …but perhaps his spirit may rise again. We have decided to keep him down there,” he said.
He is accompanied by his wife, Grace, and government officials.

Mugabe, who is on a state visit at the invitation of President Jacob Zuma, was welcomed by South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane after his plane touched down at Waterkloof Air Force Base in Pretoria.



May hell be too hot for YOU!

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Thuli Madonsela to receive another award

No fear No Favour No Traitors...........

6 April 2015 15:00

The investigation into Nkandla is just one of more than 37 000 cases that are dealt with by the Office of the Public Protector each year. Advocate Thuli Madonsela’s term of office ends in October next year. Picture: Herman Verwey/Foto24

After being named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2014, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela is to receive another award – Rhodes University will be conferring an honorary doctorate on her on Friday. Heather Dugmore profiles one of SA’s most outstanding citizens.
It’s 5pm at the Pretoria headquarters of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela. This is home time for most people, but not for her. There is no nine to five when your work is about ensuring that corruption and wrongdoing at all levels of government are exposed.
Her office, like the advocate herself, has a serene atmosphere that belies the rigorous work that takes place when members of her team, mostly advocates, regularly meet and work into the small hours.
Madonsela, who will be receiving an honorary doctorate from Rhodes University on Friday, doesn’t make a big deal of her long hours or achievements. She’s just doing her job.
“For as long as I am in this job, my team and I will investigate each case put before us and use the Constitution and law to establish the truth. And when those in government have done wrong, my office is compelled to address this,” she says.
Madonsela says she sometimes feels sorry for the perpetrators “because when something is wrong and everyone can see it, your inability to acknowledge your wrongdoing is perpetuating your own sad life”.
Regrettably, she adds, the tragedy of government wrongdoing at all levels is not restricted to the individual; it has exponential consequences for the rest of the country.
“In this life, whether you are on the big stage or small stage, there is no choice but to take responsibility for your actions. When those in government have committed wrongs, if they admit to them and start taking responsibility for their actions, it somehow massages the hurt and the country can start to move forward. Fortunately, South Africans are forgiving people. But when those in government refuse to take responsibility, then there’s no making amends, because they perpetuate the sense that they will do it again.”
Although the Nkandla matter has become a symbol of the gaping lack of responsibility among those in the country’s highest echelons, it is but one of the more than 37 000 cases the Office of the Public Protector deals with each year – most of which are resolved within three months.
Then there are the larger, lingering cases – from the nondelivery of school textbooks to government’s commitment to nuclear power deals that haven’t followed the proper consultation processes and the e-toll saga.
“It sounds like a cliché, but at the heart of good governance is the need for open, honest communication,” she says.
“People need the space and freedom to be able to communicate what they think, feel and need. If you don’t give them this, they stop communicating or tell you what they think you want to hear – because they are afraid of the consequences of being open and honest.
“Irrespective of whether you are the head of a country or company, a parent or a friend, the need for open, honest communication is the same.”
To keep some perspective on life, Madonsela tries to set aside time to walk, meditate in her garden, go to church and listen to classical music.
Holidays are few and far between, but Durban, Cape Town and Victoria Falls are three of her destinations of choice – and she would like to visit Israel.
“I’m fascinated by ancient civilisations and I often wonder how they would view us and what we have done to this earth,” she says.
“I’m concerned for the earth. We rush ahead with what we think is ‘development’, often without sufficient environmental impact studies, and then land up with all sorts of severe environmental problems, including global warming.”
Having said this, Madonsela is not pessimistic about the planet. “In the past few years we have seen the rise of many more conscious beings who are looking at what is good for our planet.”
She adds that even our country’s critical problems, notably Eskom, might result in positive outcomes – such as upscaled renewable energy investment as the fastest, most sustainable solution to power generation.
She is driven “to do what I think I need to do in the time I have here” by the “realisation of the impermanence of life”.
That Madonsela is also on borrowed time in her office worries many South Africans, as she completes her term in October next year.
What will happen when she goes? Will the state ensure that the next Public Protector is a yes man?
“I’m fairly confident that won’t happen, and I hope the state will appoint someone who can build on the work I have started.
“However, irrespective of this, institutionally what I have tried to do is build a strong, capable team that is committed to our democracy. I believe my team will continue to hold the next Public Protector accountable at every turn, as they do me.”




Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Fais Ombud exceeded her powers – Sharemax directors

Fais Ombud exceeded her powers – Sharemax directors

Appeal against controversial Fais Ombud ruling is heard at the FSB offices.

Julius Cobbett |
31 March 2015

Sharemax, shareholders, offices, pretoria

JOHANNESBURG – Advocates acting for present and former Sharemax directors argued on Monday that the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (Fais) Ombud exceeded her powers when she issued a controversial determination against their clients.

The arguments were heard at the Financial Services Board’s (FSB’s) offices on Monday morning in an appeal hearing. Four Sharemax directors and Sharemax itself are appealing a determination against them issued by the Ombud more than two years ago, in January 2013. (See: Fais Ombud finds directors liable for investor’s loss)

Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam offers the investing public free recourse against financial advisers who provide bad advice. Bam has the power to order a financial adviser to reimburse clients their losses. However in two controversial Sharemax determinations, she found the advisers liable, and extended this liability to four Sharemax directors, Willie Botha, Dominique Haese, Andre Brand and Gert Goosen, and Sharemax itself.

The Ombud denied the directors leave to appeal the determination. However, their request for leave to appeal was granted by the FSB’s appeal board.

The Ombud has suspended all determinations relating to property syndications, pending the outcome of the appeal. This has created quite a backlog, with hundreds of complaints yet to be adjudicated.

The Sharemax investors whose complaints gave rise to the controversial determinations were not present at the appeal. The complainants were Gerbrecht Siegrist, 75, and Jacqueline Bekker, 76. Siegrist’s attorney Danie Goosen submitted a notice to abide by the chairman’s ruling. His client did not submit heads of argument. Bekker informed the appeal panel that she could not afford legal advice and her request for legal aid was denied.

Siegrist’s financial adviser, CJ Botha, and Bekker’s adviser, Eddy Carter-Smith, did not apply for leave to appeal the determinations against them.

Sharemax and its former and present directors had powerful legal representation at the hearing. Willie Botha was represented by Cedric Puckring. Dominique Haese was represented by JJ Brett. Willie van Zyl appeared for Andre Brand. Sharemax was represented by Lucas van Tonder. All are senior advocates. Only Gert Goosen did not have legal representation. However Goosen was supported by his wife, Rinate, a former FSB official.

Although the Fais Ombud was neither a respondent nor appellant, she was represented by former pension funds adjudicator Vuyani Ngalwana.

One of the main arguments made by the Sharemax directors was that the Ombud exceeded her powers when she pierced the corporate veil and found them liable. Brett pointed out that the original complaints were against the financial advisers, respectively Botha and Carter-Smith, and not against the Sharemax directors at all. The Fais Ombud took it upon herself to make Sharemax and its directors respondents.

Haese’s advocate Brett argued that the Ombud did not bring an application to court to get a declaratory order allowing her to pierce the corporate veil. He said a court needs to declare in what respects there is to be a piercing. “It can’t just be open sesame.”

Brett went so far as to ask for a costs order against the Fais Ombud. The chairman replied that this would not be possible, because it would be similar to imposing a cost order on a magistrate.

The Ombud’s representative, Ngalwana, told the panel that he was not there to defend the determination but to assist the proceedings. He said the Ombud was not bound by the rules of a court, and had the power to both investigate and adjudicate. He emphasized that the determinations against financial advisers CJ Botha and Carter-Smith were still valid because neither had applied for leave to appeal.

Moneyweb will report on the appeal board’s decision when it is announced.

South Africa

Fais Ombud finds Sharemax directors liable for investor’s loss

Scathing determination declares Zambezi syndication ‘nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.’

Julius Cobbett | @Moneyweb | 31 January 2013 00:57

JOHANNESBURG – Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam has found four Sharemax directors liable for an investor’s loss.

The determination is unusual because it is normally only financial advisers who are held liable for bad investment advice.

However, in a lengthy determination, Bam has set out why she believes the Sharemax directors should be held accountable. The determination was signed on Tuesday. It can be downloaded in two parts here: part 1, part 2.

The determination could pave the way for thousands of other investors to claim losses from Sharemax’s directors.

In her latest determination, Bam is scathing of the Sharemax directors, who she accuses of “violating the law.” Bam’s determination was received after close of business on Wednesday and the Sharemax directors were not immediately available for comment.

Bam writes: “The facts before this office support the conclusion that the investment, as promoted and executed by Sharemax, was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The directors of Sharemax violated the law and on this basis [they too] must be held liable for the investors’ loss.”

The complaint in question was laid by pensioner Gerbrecht Siegrist, 73, who is now destitute after investing her capital in two Sharemax-promoted syndications: Zambezi and The Villa.

The complaint was initially laid against her financial adviser, CJ Botha. However, the following six respondents were added to the complaint: Sharemax Investments, FSP Network (trading as Unlisted Securities South Africa), and the following four Sharemax directors: Gert Goosen, Willie Botha, Dominique Haese and Andre Brand.

Siegrist’s late husband left her an amount of money which was intended to provide her with an income. This money was placed in conventional investments, but on Siegrist’s broker’s advice, she invested R460 000 in Zambezi on April 2, 2008, and a further R120 000 in The Villa on July 15, 2008.

Siegrist’s broker, CJ Botha, claims that Siegrist instructed him to invest in Sharemax. But, says Bam, in the same breath Botha “admits that the complainant wanted an investment where her capital would be safe.”

Bam notes that Zambezi was a risky investment unsuitable for pensioners. Yet she notes that brokers who sold Sharemax products “almost without fail targeted pensioners.”

Bam found that the directors of Sharemax and FSP Network “were aware of the fact that the scheme [Zambezi] was both illegal and not commercially viable and yet they recklessly took investors’ funds. Investors whom within their knowledge were almost without exception pensioners who could ill afford the inevitable loss.”

Key to Bam’s determination is the finding that Sharemax and its directors were ultimately responsible for advice rendered by CJ Botha.

Bam links Sharemax to Botha through FSP Network, which traded under the name Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA).

USSA provided many financial advisers with the necessary Financial Services Board (FSB) licence necessary to sell Sharemax products. The business was described by Bam in a previous determination as “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee.”

For more on USSA, see: the following articles: Broker offers widow costly Sharemax advice, FSB linked to Sharemax “licence for hire” scheme, and FSB official’s husband pays 13% return.

At its peak, USSA had 1376 representative brokers, all of whom sold Sharemax products. Bam notes that all of USSA’s registered brokers were only allowed to market Sharemax products.

What’s more, Sharemax director Gert Goosen was also USSA’s sole director and key individual.

Bam writes that Sharemax and USSA were “joined at the hip.”

“What Sharemax attempted to do was to create a buffer between itself and the brokers and the investors,” notes Bam. “This was a futile exercise as in law, Sharemax and its directors will, ultimately, be responsible for the conduct of their section 13 representatives.”

Bam says that Sharemax director Dominique Haese “gives no explanation as to why Sharemax stood by and took money from investors, via their ‘supervised’ broker network, who were clearly investing in a product that was not suitable for them.

Bam says that Haese must have known that the majority of the investors brought in by the representatives were pensioners.

Bam ordered all seven respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay Siegrist the amount of R580 000. If the respondents comply with the order, they are entitled to Siegrist’s share certificate.


FSB stands by Sharemax-tarnished official

Rinate Goosen was compliance officer for a company accused of Fais Act breaches.

Julius Cobbett | @Moneyweb | 6 February 2013 13:01

JOHANNESBURG – The Financial Services Board (FSB) has stood by an official linked to the failed Sharemax investment scheme.

Rinate Goosen, wife of former Sharemax director Gert Goosen, is a manager in the Financial Services Board’s (FSB’s) FAIS enforcement department. This is ironic because Rinate Goosen used to be compliance officer for a company that has been accused by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam of failing to comply with the FAIS Act.

Rinate’s husband, Gert Goosen, and three other Sharemax directors, have been accused by Bam of operating a Ponzi scheme. In a recent determination, Bam found Goosen and his co-directors directors jointly liable for the loss suffered by a pensioner who invested in two Sharemax products.

Rinate Goosen was the compliance officer of a company called Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA). USSA has come under severe criticism by Bam in recent determinations.

USSA was established by Gert Goosen in 2004. Its purpose was to provide financial advisers with the licence necessary to sell Sharemax products.

For more on USSA, see: the following articles: Broker offers widow costly Sharemax advice, FSB linked to Sharemax “licence for hire” scheme, and FSB official’s husband pays 13% return.

Last year, the FSB’s Gerry Anderson told Moneyweb that at its peak, USSA had 1 376 brokers. This number was reported by Moneyweb last year, and was also used by the Fais Ombud in her determination. However this week, Anderson told Moneyweb that USSA had at the most approximately 620 individuals on its register. Anderson says that the figure of 1 376 refers to the total number of brokers registered over USSA’s lifespan.

But even if the lower number of 620 is correct, it raises questions about USSA’s ability to supervise so many financial advisers. USSA had only one key individual, Gert Goosen, and one compliance officer, Rinate Goosen.

In her determination, Bam wrote that it was “plainly impossible” for any company, with one compliance officer – in this case Rinate Goosen – to train and supervise well over 1 000 representatives spread throughout the country

Last year Bam described USSA’s business as “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee”. In her latest determination she went even further, describing USSA as “nothing more than a marketing arm of Sharemax”. USSA’s brokers were contractually obliged to sell only Sharemax products, and in 2010 Sharemax became a 60% shareholder of USSA.

Furthermore, Bam wrote that USSA “was under a duty to train representatives that Sharemax was not suitable for pensioners or any other investor who cannot afford to lose any part of their capital. Equally, there was a duty on USSA to inform their representatives to persuade pensioners that Sharemax was not for them. None of this was done; on the contrary it appears that the representatives were encouraged to target these vulnerable pensioners with promises of income between 10% and 12%.”

Bam wrote: “The directors of Sharemax and [USSA] were aware of the fact that the scheme was both illegal and not commercially viable and yet they recklessly took investors’ funds. Investors whom within their knowledge were almost without exception pensioners who could ill afford the inevitable loss.”

In light of these findings it is reasonable to ask whether Rinate Goosen is the right person at the FSB to enforce compliance with the FAIS Act.

Rinate Goosen was employed by the FSB from 1991 to 1999. She left the FSB in 1999 to join Liberty Collective Investments (which later became Stanlib) where she spent five years in a compliance officer position. Goosen later joined USSA where she spent at least four years as that company’s compliance officer.

Goosen was re-employed by the FSB in 2011, after the collapse of Sharemax’s two largest syndication schemes, Zambezi and The Villa.

Last year the FSB’s Gerry Anderson defended Goosen’s re-employment. Anderson described Goosen as “well qualified and extremely competent.”

Said Anderson: “At the time of her re-employment, it was known to the FSB what the position of her husband was. It is not believed that there is a conflict of interest. Rinate was employed on her own merits and despite being married to Mr Goosen, based on career history.”

In light of Bam’s most recent determination, Moneyweb once again asked Anderson to comment. The following questions were posed to Anderson:

· The latest Fais Ombud determination does not paint Rinate Goosen in a very good light. Considering its contents, do you still consider Mrs Goosen to be fit and proper to hold the position she does?

· Has the FSB initiated any review of Mrs Goosen’s position?

Anderson’s responded: “The FSB’s position is unchanged in this regard.”

Prior to publication, a draft copy of this article was sent to Anderson and Rinate Goosen with the invitation to correct possible factual errors and to offer additional comment.

Anderson responded:

Ms Goosen advised that USSA did not rent its licence out to unqualified financial advisers. According to her the concept of “renting a licence” did not exist. She has explained as follows: The FAIS Act came into operation on 30 September 2004 and when it did so, not all the applications for licences that had been submitted by brokers in the industry had been finalised by the FSB. In order to strike a balance between regulation and continued economic activity, the FSB exempted applicants who had submitted licence applications to the FSB prior to 30 September 2004, and such applicants were allowed to operate under the exemption until such time as the FSB had rejected or granted the licence application.

Ms Goosen advised that the purpose of USSA was to enable brokers who were not rendering financial services under the exemption that existed, to continue to sell Sharemax related unlisted investments and obtain the necessary experience in respect of financial products 1.8 (securities) and later 1.10 (debentures), until such time as they could submit an application to the FSB to obtain their own FSP licence. It also provided other brokers who already had the necessary experience but did not fall under the exemption because they had not submitted their licence applications timeously, to continue to sell Sharemax related unlisted investments while FSB attended to their licence applications. When the industry realised in 2006 that category 1.10 (debentures) was a product that required licensing, certain brokers who already had product 1.8 (securities) licensing came onto USSA’s register while they were waiting for the FSB to attend to their applications to have financial product 1.10 added to their own licences.


Sharemax appeals halt ombud rulings

December 17 2013 at 08:00am
By Roy Cokayne Comment on this story
Johannesburg - The Ombud for financial advisory and intermediary services (Fais) has suspended the issuing of determinations on property syndication schemes.

This follows the appeal board of the Financial Services Board (FSB) granting leave to appeal to the respondents in two determinations issued this year by the Fais ombud. The appeal board said it wanted to consider “a number of procedural and substantive issues”.

In a letter received this month by an investor in a Sharemax scheme, the case manager at the Fais ombud said the appeal board’s decision on these issues could affect complaints related to property syndication investments and the manner in which they were dealt with by the Fais ombud.

“As a result, the ombud has taken a decision to suspend the issuing of determinations in respect of property syndication matters at this stage until the appeals in the matters of Siegrist and Bekker have been finalised,” it said.

It estimated the decision of the appeal board was likely only after July next year.

The letter said the Fais ombud had received “thousands of complaints” related to Sharemax and other property syndications, including Pickvest, Realcor Cape and others.

It stressed that the office continued to accept and investigate complaints related to property syndication investments “but cannot determine after such investigation until the ruling in the two matters has been delivered”.

These determinations both involved complaints by investors about financial advice given to invest in Zambezi Retail Park, a scheme promoted and marketed by Sharemax.

Apart from the financial adviser in each complaint, the following were jointly and severally held liable to repay the complainants: Sharemax Investments; FSP Network; Sharemax and Unlisted Securities South Africa director Gert Goosen; and Sharemax directors Willem Botha, Dominique Haese and Andre Brand.

In the Gerbrecht Siegrist complaint determination, Fais ombud Noluntu Bam said her office had “pierced the corporate veil” of how Sharemax operated and had concluded that Zambezi Retail Park was “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme” with investors paid interest out of their own funds.

Bam said the directors of FSP Network and Sharemax must be held “personally liable” for Siegrist’s loss and could not “hide behind the corporate veil”.

“The directors of Sharemax and FSP Network were aware of the fact that the scheme was both illegal and not commercially viable and yet they recklessly took investors’ funds,” she said.

In the Jacqueline Bekker complaint determination, Bam ruled that Sharemax Investments, its network of financial advisers and four of its directors – Goosen, Botha, Haese and Brand – were involved “in a scheme calculated to defraud” members of the public.

Caroline da Silva, the deputy registrar for Fais at the FSB, said the appeal board was a tribunal that was independent of the FSB and comment should come from the judge of the appeal board.

However, Da Silva said comment could not be provided at this stage about the nature of the procedural and substantive issues to be considered because the appeal was a legal process and subject to the sub judice rule and confidentiality provisions of the legislation.

Sharemax collapsed in 2011 after a registrar of banks decision that its funding model contravened the Banks Act became public knowledge, leading to new investments drying up. - Business Report

Zwelinzima Vavi axed



A Cosatu special central executive committee meeting voted on Monday evening to dismiss the federation’s general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi. It marks the end his long-running leadership of South Africa’s most powerful trade union federation and comes after two-and-a-half years of turbulence in Cosatu. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.

At a media briefing on Sunday afternoon, Cosatu’s embattled general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi told a media briefing: “I am prepared to live with the consequences of my actions… I am prepared to be a sacrificial lamb.” A day later, in the same boardroom where he stood addressing the nation, Vavi’s enemies in the labour federation voted 31 votes to one to dismiss him.
The vote came after discussions in the special Cosatu central executive committee (CEC) meeting earlier on Monday whether Vavi should be suspended and undergo a disciplinary process or face immediate expulsion.
Sources close to Cosatu and Vavi confirmed to Daily Maverick that there was “no objection” in the discussions to a straight expulsion. There was no support for Vavi as seven unions that have been backing him have suspended their participation in Cosatu. His biggest backer, metalworkers union Numsa, was expelled in November last year, paving the way for Vavi axing.
Daily Maverick understands the matter was voted on in anticipation of any court action Vavi might take to challenge his dismissal.
Vavi held a media briefing on Sunday to announce he would not be attending the CEC meeting as he anticipated that the deck would be stacked against him. “If my refusal to attend the special CEC is used as a pretext to fire me, then so be it,” Vavi said.
The dismissal marks the end of Vavi’s colourful career at the helm of Cosatu, 16 years of which he served as general secretary. He was an outspoken critic of government and the ANC during this time and was also integrally involved in the rise of President Jacob Zuma as head of the ruling party.
His future career plans are yet unclear. However he said on Sunday that he would now return to full time organising of worker struggles.
“I will be found everywhere marching with workers, mobilising them, reinforcing the recruitment of workers to reach out to the 71% who are not organised into any union, negotiating, leading campaigns against labour brokers, e-tolls, exploitation, job losses, service delivery, poor delivery of education and health care, etc. I call on all workers who agree to this programme to close the door on divisions that have sapped our energy, to join the mobilisation of the working class for our total emancipation,” Vavi said.
Vavi’s departure from Cosatu is likely to have major ramifications for the trade union movement and politics to the left of the ANC.DM



Zwelinzima Vavi is a better STATESMAN than Jacob Zuma ever was or could




Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Black students number 70% but are doomed with a 50% drop-out rate

No fear No Favour No Education..........

23rd March 14:52

More black students are enrolling in South Africa’s universities, but the drop-out rates for university and high school students are still alarmingly high.
The South African Institute of Race Relations’ latest Fast Facts report, which traces progress South Africans have made since 1994, noted that in 2012, 70% of all university students were black – an increase from 50% in 1995.
However, the report revealed that more than 50% of all students who enrolled for a three- or four-year degree, never finished their studies.
There are more older students, the report revealed. The proportion of students between the ages of 20 and 24 who are enrolled in universities has increased from 15% to 19% in the decade to 2012.
Access to basic education has also improved dramatically, with the proportion of South Africans aged 20 and above with no schooling having declined from 11.6% in 2002 to 5.5% in 2013.
The proportion of those with matric increased from 29.8% to 38.8%, while those with post-school education almost doubled from 3.7% to 6.9%.
However, such progress must be weighed against significant drop-out rates, said the institute’s chief executive Frans Cronjé.
“The Institute of Race Relations was the first to point out some six or seven years ago that only half of children who enrol in grade one will ever have the experience of sitting in a matric class,” said Cronje.
Of those pupils fortunate enough to make it to matric, only half will write mathematics as a subject. Also, only one in four matric pupils will pass maths with 50% or higher.
“Put plainly, if 10 children enrol in grade one in any given year, one can expect five of them to reach matric, three to pass, and at most, only one to pass maths with 50%,” said Cronje.
“There is no better way to explain the damage that the current school system causes to the life prospects of South Africa’s children and the reason why education policy reform is vitally needed.”


Is it because of low Matric pass rates that black students have a 50% drop out rate?
Or are they too busy with 'REVOLUTION POLITICS" and too lazy to learn?
Which country would allow students to burn down universities, colleges, schools, statues & clinics and still be allowed into those institutions?

Monday, March 16, 2015

Mthethwa appointed into late Chabane's post

No Fear No Favour No unnatural deaths.......

by SAPA MARCH 16 2015

Minister of Arts and Culture Nathi Mthethwa has been appointed as the acting minister of public service and administration, the Presidency said on Monday.

This followed the death of Public Service and Administration Minister Collins Chabane on Sunday.
Chabane and his bodyguards Sergeant Lesiba Sekele and Sergeant Lawrence Lentsoane were killed instantly when a truck allegedly did a u-turn in front of their car on the N1 near Polokwane in the early hours of Sunday morning.
The truck driver was not injured. He was arrested on the scene and charged with culpable homicide. He would appear in the Polokwane Magistrate's Court on Tuesday.
President Jacob Zuma extended his condolences to the staff of the department who lost their second minister in a short space of time.
Chabane's predecessor Roy Padayachie died of natural cause in 2012.

Sowetan News