Monday, July 27, 2015



The former bouncer was sentenced to 25 years in prison for kidnapping his girlfriend in the 90s.

FILE. In the early 1990s Gary Beuthin kidnapped his girlfriend, socialite Jill Reeves, for 12 days and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Picture: Christa Eybers/EWN.

JOHANNESBURG – Former bouncer and notorious 'bad boy' Gary Beuthin is appearing in court in Germiston today after being arrested yet again. 

Beuthin was taken into custody by police in Edenvale last week. 

This follows a string of arrests and convictions over the past two decades. 

When Edenvale police pulled him over in his car last week, he was caught with an unlicensed revolver and drugs. 

He spent the weekend in custody.  

Beuthin has been arrested numerous times over the past few years. 
In the early 1990s the bouncer kidnapped his girlfriend, socialite Jill Reeves, for 12 days and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. 
More recently, he was sentenced to 10 years in jail for the 2010 assault of a former Hells Angels member.
It's unclear why Beuthin was not behind bars at the time of his latest arrest.


Nothing in this world will rehabilitate Gary Beuthin anymore.
HE should be imprisoned for the rest of his life!
It will make society a better & safer place!

Friday, July 24, 2015

Nkandla: A day of rain and shame for Jacob Zuma

No Fear No Favour No Dictators here please......

Ranjeni Munusami  * SOUTH AFRICA  24 JULY 2015 00:39 (SOUTH AFRICA)

How would having Members of Parliament and a big contingent of journalists trudging through your private space be better than paying back the money? Whoever thought it was a good idea to have the parliamentary ad hoc committee on Nkandla visit President Jacob Zuma’s rural home obviously did not think it through. In the ANC’s desperation to protect the president from scrutiny and having to pay back the state for non-security upgrades, they keep prolonging the saga and introducing new fiascos. This week they did what was hitherto unheard of: they allowed a variety of strangers to traipse around the home of a head of state, in his absence, to assess how he lives. It was a grim spectacle and a cringe fest. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.

During President Jacob Zuma’s rape trial in 2006, the world was taken on a journey through his home in Forest Town, Johannesburg – his bedroom, his shower and his personal and family relations. On the witness stand, Zuma had to expose private details of his life, including that he was circumcised and his HIV status. He had to describe the sexual encounter with his accuser in graphic detail. His daughter, Duduzile, had to testify in his defence about her recollection of events of that day and how she relates to her father.
Zuma subjected himself to all this in order to prove that he was not guilty of the crime of rape. It was demeaning for a former liberation hero and deputy president of the country to have private details of his life splashed on every media platform and become the main talking point in the country for several months.
The rape trial was not the only time Zuma’s home was open to investigation. In 2005, members of the then Scorpions unit raided his homes, as well as properties of family members and his lawyers. On that occasion, a group of strangers knocked on the door of his Forest Town house at dawn and searched through it, looking for evidence of corruption. Hundreds of kilometres away, his home at Nkandla was also being rummaged through.
Despite these humiliating experiences, Zuma bounced back and went on to become the ANC president in 2007 and president of the country two years after that.
As President of South Africa, Zuma occupies the highest office of the land and is the prime custodian of the Constitution. He is meant to protect the dignity of the office he holds. His term has been plagued with numerous scandals and controversies, but none have haunted Zuma as much and affected him as personally as the security upgrades at his Nkandla home. And none have denigrated the Office of the President more than the Nkandla scandal.
The Public Protector’s investigation into the upgrades led to enormous political pressure being exerted on Thuli Madonsela and her office by the security cluster. The presidency failed to answer many questions she had submitted regarding the project. Since the release of Madonsela’s report, the issue has become politically explosive, particularly over her recommendation that Zuma pay back to the state a reasonable percentage of taxpayers’ money spent on non-security upgrades. There have been numerous skirmishes in Parliament, including at the State of the Nation Address, with opposition parties, especially the Economic Freedom Fighters, demanding that Zuma be held accountable and pay back the money.
The report by Police Minister Nkosinathi Nhleko has opened up a whole new chapter in the debacle. The report, which concluded that Zuma need not pay back any money, is now being processed by the third parliamentary ad hoc committee on Nkandla. The committee, which is dominated by ANC members, thought it a good idea to inspect the upgrades themselves in order to certify Nhleko’s findings and his recommendation that more money be spent to secure the president’s home.
And so, this week, a spectacle ensued as MPs, officials and journalists all stomped around the Nkandla compound, opening up the private space of a sitting president to scrutiny. As cold, winter rain soaked the heart of Zululand, MPs sloshed around to check the facilities Madonsela deemed to be non-security upgrades and Nhleko insisted they were security related.
While they did so, rain drenched journalists were allowed to inspect the adjoining development, where 21 chalets meant for police and army personnel stand mostly uninhabited and in waste. They were also taken into what was meant to be a clinic that now stands empty and incomplete. Democratic Alliance MPs who are not members of the ad hoc committee joined in the spectacle, tweeting pictures as they went along. Pictures circulated on social media of a frightened lamb seeking refuge from the rain, mattresses on the floor of one of the chalets and a shoddily built toilet with the seat lifted.
Of course these were not from the inside the president’s own house but these crude images are all now associated with Zuma’s Nkandla home. These are the images the world will associate with where the President of South Africa lives.
From the discussions in the ad hoc committee meeting in Pietermaritzburg on Thursday, there was consensus that the project was poorly managed, that there was no value for money whatsoever and that costs were heavily inflated. ANC MPs lamented that the president is in danger at Nkandla due to poorly built and incomplete facilities.
They also raged that upgrades were inaccurately portrayed as being luxurious, including by Madonsela, when there was nothing lavish to be found. Some said their own constituency offices and swimming pools were better than the facilities built for the president. One ANC MP, Thandi Mahambehlala, attacked Madonsela for misleading the public. Another ANC MP, Dumisani Gamede, said he was very hurt to see the state of the homestead, and questioned why people were “damaging” the country by portraying an inaccurate picture of the upgrades.
Opposition MPs called for all those responsible for the project to appear before the committee. They also called again for Zuma to explain his role, particularly after a police memo emerged that suggests that the 21 bachelor flats, constructed at a cost of R135 million, were built on instructions from the president.
The memo states: “By instruction of the State President, President Zuma, the existing house at Nkandla currently accommodate [sic] SAPS members must be converted as part of the president's household.
“To cater for the needs of the members currently accommodated in the house as refer above [sic], additional bachelor flats need to be added to the needs assessment previously provided to your department.”
As usual, ANC members of the committee argued against any questioning of the president. “We must be very careful before we can say there are serious allegations against the president,” the committee chairman Cedrick Frolick said. “I do not share the same views that there are serious allegations all of a sudden against President Jacob Zuma.”
And this is precisely why the Nkandla scandal has dragged on for five years, with no end in sight to the controversy, and the continued defilement of the Office of the President. From the security cluster to the government task team to Nhleko to the ad hoc committee, ANC leaders engage in all manner of theatrics to protect Zuma and only create more controversy.
What they fail to realise is that the fact that there is shoddy workmanship, inflated costs and incomplete facilities at Nkandla does not make Zuma the victim. It shows that the Nkandla project, like so much else that is managed by government, is badly done with no care for how much is spent or accountability for the end result. An outrageous amount of money was spent on what is clearly an unmitigated mess that will take millions more to fix. Some things, like the unnecessary construction of the 21 chalets, cannot be undone.
Now the committee is desperate to find someone to blame, as if that will minimise the scandal. The ANC MPs also seem to be arguing that because the facilities that Madonsela termed non-security upgrades – the swimming pool, amphitheatre, visitors centre, chicken run and cattle kraal – do not look lavish, the president should not have to pay for them. They continuously sidestep the issues that the president and his family accrued these benefits improperly, regardless of whether they look extravagant or not.
The ad hoc committee will continue considering the matter and is scheduled to submit their report to Parliament at the end of August. The ANC, it would seem, will continue to trip over themselves to protect Zuma from reimbursing the state, and will undoubtedly concur with Nhleko’s recommendation that more money be spent to upgrade security at Nkandla.
They are probably oblivious to the fact that their little foray into the compound once again subjected the president and his family members who live there to humiliation. A home might be a person’s castle, but for Zuma, it is place where others come to look and scoff.
Had Zuma agreed from the outset that the project was appallingly managed with unnecessary features added on, and agreed to pay for the upgrades that benefitted him and his family, he could have preserved his dignity and protected the office he holds. But he would rather let this fiasco continue in perpetuity, allowing his home to be a spectacle.
So Nkandla continues to be what it is – a monument to corruption and excess, a showcase for incompetence, a place of South Africa's shame. DM
Photo: South African President Jacob Zuma at the Presidential home in Pretoria, South Africa a week after the ruling ANC won 62% of the local election vote. May 26, 2011. Photo Greg Marinovich /


This gentleman ZUMA seems to have a big chip on both shoulders.....?

He thinks the WORLD and South Africa in particular owes him.








Friday, July 10, 2015

Searching for bogeyman: Beware the great judicial-media mafia drug-pusher counter-revolution

No fear No Favour No Communists please........

Ranjeni Munusamy  *  SOUTH AFRICA    8 JULY 2015 12:10 (South Africa)

One has to wonder what went on at the recent five-day alliance summit. The leaders of the ANC, Cosatu and the South African Communist Party (SACP) have come out swinging wildly at an array of supposed enemies – the judiciary, the media as well as their former comrades who have apparently crossed over to the dark side. SACP general secretary Blade Nzimande claims his life is in danger because of a SABC-Multichoice deal and Cosatu president S’dumo Dlamini says there is a plan to drug and inebriate people at the federation’s special national congress next week. So be warned – the anti-majoritarian liberal offensive now features media assassins and force-feeding alcohol to Cosatu delegates. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.

Cosatu President S’dumo Dlamini has reason to be worried. He was forced to convene next week’s Cosatu special national congress by the unions who clearly want him out of his position. Despite getting rid of his chief opponents, metalworkers union Numsa and former Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, Dlamini is not certain how much influence and support they have amongst the delegates who will attend the congress. He is also not certain how many of the rebel unions allied to Numsa, who have been participating in Cosatu meetings on an on-off basis, will show up and then try to push their agenda at the congress. The major issue on their list is likely to be the reversal of Numsa and Vavi’s expulsions.
Dlamini had obviously been fired up at the recent alliance summit called by President Jacob Zuma. One of the main reasons the summit was convened was to discuss the divisions in Cosatu and Dlamini and his supporters were tasked with keeping the door firmly closed to the troublemakers and not losing more support or grip on the federation.
But as the special congress approaches, paranoia has set in. Speaking at the SACP special congress underway in Johannesburg this week, Dlamini said there was a “huge offensive directed at the workers, the working class and in particular against the progressive organisations known to be the genuine representatives of the working class”.
He said the Cosatu leaders had received reports “with evidence of written documents” of a “well funded plan which runs into millions”. The plan apparently includes deploying people to divide unions at a provincial level, to bus in non-delegates who will picket on the sidelines of the special congress, and also stage a walk-out if things do not happen their way. “All this is based on the realisation that the plan to steal away Cosatu has failed and there is now an open intention to cause chaos within our ranks including disrupting the special national congress”, Dlamini said.
He claimed R500,000 had been set aside to ensure the removal of Cosatu second deputy president Zingiswa Losi and R250,000 to disrupt the Cosatu special congress. “Our conclusion is that they will buy a lot of alcohol and even drugs and feed them to workers so they can cause disruptions at the congress. We are prepared for all these,” Dlamini said.
The mechanics of this plot is not quite clear. Will there be a party venue near Gallagher Estate at which delegates will be inebriated and then dispatched to cause disruptions or will highly paid undercover operative be hired to infiltrate the congress and slip drugs into the bottled water? Whatever it is, Dlamini said Cosatu has put security measures in place to ensure that delegates are safe.
The conspiracy might seem bizarre but if there is a rebellion at the congress, at least Dlamini can explain it as the delegates being drunk. The possibility that workers might be independent-minded and would not succumb to being drugged in order to have political views on the state of Cosatu was apparently not factored in to the conspiracy.
It is not only Cosatu delegates who are under threat.
SACP general secretary Blade Nzimande says his life is in danger. No, it is not that he is being force fed alcohol like the Cosatu delegates and made to talk nonsense.
Nzimande told the SACP special congress that his criticism of the deal between the SABC and Multichoice had placed his life in danger. “My life and that of national treasurer are under threat, including physical threat for criticising the SABC…Why should we be forced into watching DSTV and its repeat programmes as the only private platform? The SABC has been engulfed into Multichoice and its monopoly, we have fought to liberate the SABC from the National Party, we must fight Naspers for its monopoly of private television,” Nzimande was quoted byIndependent Online.
Who the would-be assassins are is not clear. Nzimande accused City Press of being hellbent on investigating him because of his criticism of the SABC. City Press is in the Media24 stable, which is owned by Naspers, which is Multichoice's corporate parent. That is a pretty long line of conspirators wanting to kill or investigate Nzimande. Or perhaps the assassin is Hlaudi Motsoeneng, who apparently is also not on Nzimande’s Christmas card list.
“Let us confront Naspers for its monopoly of private paid TV,” Nzimande told the SACP delegates. “Why should we be forced to watch DSTV and its repeats?”
Why indeed? And admittedly, watching repeats, especially 1980s series, can make you wish someone would kill you.
Nzimande congratulated ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe for being a “revolutionary” for criticising the judiciary, even if it earned him the title of Mampara of the Week. Mantashe had elaborated on the alliance statement that there was an emerging trend of “judicial over-reach”. He said there was a drive in some courts to “create chaos for governance”.
Nzimande once again stitched together his claim of an “anti-majoritarian liberal offensive”.
“If the media want us to respect them, they must also respect our views on the judiciary,” he said. “Those in the newspapers want to weaken us [the alliance]. We need a broad front. Without the alliance, we would not be where we are today. Part of the offensive we are facing today is because the neo-liberals are not happy [with the successes] of the alliance,” Nzimande was quoted by the Mail & Guardian.
The neo-liberals have to suck on the roaring success the alliance now is, particularly after its bonding session-cum-pep rally. They are a united force attacking everyone from judges who dare to make rulings consistent with the Constitution to newspapers investigating someone for something vaguely related to something else. Maybe. And if anyone dares to buy a worker a beer next week, prepare to be exposed by the Cosatu leadership as this being part of the quarter of a million rand project to disrupt their congress.
The counterrevolution will never succeed with these guys in charge. Be warned. DM
Photo: Cosatu's S'dumo Dlamini, ANC's Gwede Mantashe and SACP's Blade Nzimande.


Comments by Sonny Cox





No fear No Favour No Executive interference please.......

ANC  Mogoeng Mogoeng  Independant judiciary

Stephen Grootes says judges are hitting back at the government, and they are absolutely furious.It’s not often that judges give press conferences. When they do, it’s usually under the auspices of the Judicial Service Commission. Occasionally, something happens that requires a brief question and answer session with the Chief Justice. So it is probably unprecedented in the history of our country, before and after 1994, that the Chief Justice, his deputy, and all the heads of courts hold a press conference. With all of those judges in one room, adding their judicial weight to what’s being said. History is being made here: judges are hitting back at the government, and they are absolutely furious.

It started, of course, with the ruling in the North Gauteng High Court that the President of Sudan, that evil dictator Omar al-Bashir, must not be allowed to leave the country, pending another hearing on whether he should be arrested and sent to the International Criminal Court. It started to gather momentum when Gwede Mantashe, the secretary general of the ANC, the body that used to boast that it gave us our Constitution, complained on Carte Blanche, “there is a drive in some courts to create chaos for governance”. Things started to get a little more real when that court gave its reasons for the decision.
Then, the ANC-led alliance issued its ‘declaration’ that expressed concern at the “emerging trend, in some quarters, of judicial over-reach”. Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke was mentioned, as note was taken of a speech he gave recently. Of course, once Blade Nzimande entered the fray, everyone involved knew worse was to come. On Wednesday morning, he told the SACP’s special national congress, “We are not going to shut up”.
Nzimande also said, “we liberated this country... We are never going to ask for permission from forces who were never with us in the trenches”. Coming from Nzimande, who spent the years before the end of apartheid as an academic, this is surely an insult to, say Moseneke, who was in jail on Robben Island while still a teenager. Critics of the judiciary also look stupid when they claim it is ‘untransformed’. None of the judges at this press conference were white.
There can be no denying the anger and frustration on the part of Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, and his colleagues. He called a meeting of the heads of court, everyone from the Supreme Court of Appeal to the provinces was there. All of the judges, around one table, in the surprisingly hallowed halls of the InterContinental at OR Tambo International, looking suitably sombre and grave.
In his prepared statement, Mogoeng responded directly to the criticism leveled against them. “Judges, like others, should be susceptible to constructive criticism. However, in this regard, the criticism should be fair and in good faith. Importantly the criticism should be specific and clear. General gratuitous criticism is unacceptable.”
It’s an important comment. The judges are not saying that Nzimande and Mantashe are not allowed to say what they’ve said. The judges themselves would protect their right to freedom of speech. What they are doing is saying, to the court of public opinion, you need to be properly specific in your criticism. This has the impact of putting these critics on the back foot. It means that these generic comments are out of bounds, you actually have to work at your criticism. This would mean, for example, in the al-Bashir case, that the ruling needs to first be read and understood, and then, specific parts of it need to be addressed. (No one can accuse anyone from the ANC of having done that.) But now someone with a law degree at Luthuli House is going to be tasked with trying to work out a legal criticism for ANC Today as quickly as possible. Good luck to them; it was the ANC who domesticated the International Criminal Court into our law, not some generic ‘untransformed’ judge.
Then Mogoeng goes on to say, “There have been suggestions that in certain cases judges have been prompted by others to arrive at a pre-determined result. This is a notion that we reject. However, in a case in which a judge does overstep, the general public, litigants or other aggrieved or interested parties should refer the matter to the judicial conduct committee of Judicial Service Commission.”
This is surely a reference to a story by Eyewitness News last month, in which it emerged that police minister Nathi Nhleko had told the provincial heads of the Hawks, in a closed meeting, that certain judges “colluded with people to produce certain judgments”.
When asked if that was indeed what Mogoeng was referring to, he wouldn’t be drawn, not wanting to go into specifics. He also wouldn’t say this was about the al-Bashir case, but did drop a wonderful hint when he said that, “It would not take a rigorous exercise to work out which court orders have not been obeyed”. He’s probably right to be cautious here, he won’t want to get tangled in specifics, in public at least.
The upshot of all of this is that all the heads of courts have now mandated Mogoeng to request a meeting with President Jacob Zuma to discuss it all. He says it’s ‘always healthy’ to discuss these kinds of things, and yes, he will want it to happen behind closed doors.
This is probably the right strategy. It has the virtue of looking judicial and serious, of showing that you believe in the power of words and reason. It is also, surely, impossible for Zuma to deny him the meeting. That would look small and rude. As one of the few weapons judges have is the support of the public, it puts Zuma into a place where he has to see Mogoeng, and be seen to take him seriously. Should there be any kind of public statement afterwards, it will have to include Zuma affirming his commitment to the rule of law, even if the cynics will still be sniggering.
And of course, Mogoeng has done well by biding his time here. There was no rush to shout and scream after al-Bashir left the country. Instead, he made sure all the judges were behind him. This now looks like the entire judiciary, not just one person. And that’s because it IS the whole judiciary.
But wait, there’s more. In what is quite a cunning move, the Law Society, the Black Lawyers Association, and the National Association of Democratic Lawyers were there as well, and all eager to show their support for the Chief Justice. Suddenly, it's not just judges, it’s everyone involved in the legal system that is now ranged against those who believe judges are ‘anti-majoritarian’.
That’s good politics.
It must be mentioned here that all of these people, whether they be the Chief Justice or just an ordinary attorney, have a huge stake in the power and independence of the judiciary. This is their system; if their system loses power, they lose power. From a purely objective power point of view, judges would always be expected to protect their turf. This is what they are now doing.
Zuma, and people such as Mantashe, will surely understand that. They will have to consider their next response carefully. To win this battle in public they will have to come up with specific legal criticisms, which will not be easy. Mogoeng and his fellow judges have probably successfully placed them under pressure. And the easiest way for them to escape that pressure is to simply shut up and keep repeating the commitment to respecting courts’ decisions.
And perhaps, while they’re there, they should simply ask themselves one question, would they still be so angry, and attacking the judiciary, if the court had ruled the other way on al-Bashir?
Twenty-one years into our democracy we are facing a crisis that could render our society dysfunctional. We’re seeing the same people controlling the executive and lawmaking branches of government, and close to, or even over, the line of disrespect for the judiciary branch. In this turbulent and ever-changing space, Chief Justice Mogoeng’s intervention might one day be seen as one of the courageous acts that saved South Africa’s budding democracy.
This column first appeared on Daily Maverick. Go to for more comment and analysis.
Stephen Grootes is the senior political correspondent for Eyewitness News and the host of the Midday Report on Talk Radio 702 and 567 CapeTalk. He is the author of SA Politics Unspun. Follow him on Twitter: @StephenGrootes

This report should not be taken lightly!
President Zuma has outplayed his authority in SOUTH AFRICA.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Nightmare of golden handshake

No Fear No Favour No Survivors........

July 7 2015 at 09:30am 
By Marianne Merten

Former Hawks boss Anwa Dramat was paid R3 109 029.80. File photo: Antoine de Ras.

Cape Town - Payouts for the departure of top government officials before their contracts expire, often amid allegations of misconduct or fallouts with ministers, cost South African taxpayers millions of rands each year, a spate of parliamentary replies shows.

This included R3 109 029.80 paid to former Hawks boss Anwa Dramat in March after his suspension over a controversial rendition of Zimbabweans, the police ministry confirmed on Monday, alongside golden handshakes of just over R35.2 million to some 22 top police officials, who left in three of the past five years.
The spate of parliamentary replies came in response to DA questions to various ministers about officials who were paid out the remainder of their contracts to depart from office in the period between the 2008/9 and 2014/15 financial years.
However, the clumsy phrasing of the questions appears to allow answers related only to amounts paid out for the remainder of an official’s contract, leaving potentially unanswered other possible payments related to, for example, bonuses, leave and expenses and other allowances.
National Treasury, in its response, indicated former SAA boss Khaya Ngqula was paid R9.35m in a “separation agreement” even though he faced misconduct charges at the time of his departure from the loss-making national airline. The 2008/9 SAA annual report shows he received also received R4.656m for salaries and retention premiums.
Thus, while Dramat was paid just over R3.1m for the remainder of his contract, he may also be paid R60 000 a month until age 60, or another 13 years, as the Mail & Guardian reported earlier this year.
According to Police Minister Nkosinathi Nhleko’s parliamentary reply, Dramat left under Section 35 of the SAPS Act, which allows for discharge on account of redundancy, the interests of the service or appointment to the public service.
Section 35 also is the reason cited for the departure of lieutenant-general Hamilton Hlela, who was paid just over R2m although he faced financial misconduct charges at the time. Last month he pleaded guilty to receiving kick-backs for two holidays for himself and his wife, according to the City Press.
The payouts also include R2.194m paid to lieutenant-general Andre Pruis in January 2011 who retired, according to SAPS official statements at the time, but whose departure is reflected as one under Section 35 in the parliamentary reply.
The SAPS golden handshakes also include just over R1.9m paid to two former deputy national commissioners, lieutenants-general Godfrey Lebeya and Leah Mofomme, in 2014 under Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The settlement followed their challenge to retrenchment by national police commissioner General Riah Phiyega after the two argued for the retention of their deputy national commissioners ranking when the SAPS boss moved them to different posts.
In its parliamentary reply to the DA question, National Treasury revealed the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) paid R3 188 014 in settlements to undisclosed officials, while the South African Revenue Services (Sars) paid out R 4 745 571.68 over the 2008/9 to 2014/15 period, but also declined to name the officials due to “confidentiality agreements”.
However, the Sars figure does not include the settlements rumoured to have been reached with top Sars officials Ivan Pillay and Peter Richer amid the terse controversy sparked when a so-called rogue unit was uncovered. Both officials left in May, and any settlement figures would fall within the 2015/16 financial year which started on April 1, 2015.
In agriculture, the parliamentary replies show, two successive agriculture directors-general received R2 754 152.71 in payouts after they left within three years of each other, both before their contracts expired, while a ministerial special adviser was paid R750 125.54 after her contract was terminated.
In addition, the agriculture department paid just over R2.728m to four officials at two entities under its auspices, the Agricultural Research Council and Onderstepoort Biological Products, where the official who received a R1.195m pay-out was on suspension pending a misconduct probe.
Political Bureau

IOL News