Court to bail out Cyril?

0:00Will the Western Cape High Court bail out Cyril Ramaposa for a second time? Judging by the tenor of the bench, it looks like it. Plus more explosive revelations at the Myzlanga Commission yesterday wasn't able to give me my thoughts on Libya's testimony. So let's get into all that and more. Spread the fire fam. Welcome back to SMWX. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button and take us to half a million subscribers. Great to be with you again fam. And today I want to take you straight to the Western Cape High Court where there's an important case unfolding about the Palapalla saga. There was a report which said that Cyril Ramaposa should go to an impeachment committee to explain his conduct around Palapalla. And Ramaposa is challenging that report, trying to review it and set it aside

1:00so that he doesn't have to face the impeachment committee and doesn't have to face accountability. And so that case is unfolding and it's a really important case. So I'm going to explain to you what we've seen so far over two days of arguments. Thanks so much for watching in numbers. I see our stream today already has over 100,000 views. Shout out to the SNW fam. Shout out to the commissioners. Hope you're joining us live. Don't forget to comment and I'll respond to your comments at the end of this episode. Second thing I want to do in this episode is speak about the Mazanga commission and Libia's testimony yesterday because we got explosive pictures revealed. We got all kinds of interesting information from WhatsApp's. But let's go to the Western Cape High Court because fam. Yeah, near man. It's looking disappointing. No, in lie. All indications are this court is going to bail the president out again. You can just see I've been here before. I've seen we saw this interdict where various observers thought it would be impossible.

2:04And the bench. Yeah, no, the president, the benches love this president. So yeah, in terms of the outcome, I think they're going to hand Ramaposa a lifeline just based on, you know, they're certain judges that haven't asked a single difficult question to president, Ramaposa. Judge Mayorsi has only asked helpful questions to the president. So I mean, I mean, maybe I'll be surprised at the end. Then it'll be a completely different outcome. But I feel like I can see where this is going. But I want to tell you what happened today and just give you a quick one on this case. So the case has been going on for two days yesterday. The president made his oral arguments and then towards the end of yesterday, the ATM, who are one of the respondents replied to the president today, we had the ATM EFF and MK party, including the grandfather of S M W X arguing. And then tomorrow, the grandfather of S M W X will conclude his argument.

3:04And then the president will get to reply to everyone. So that's how it's flowed today. Now today, the case kicked off with Kessler Paramalsami arguing extremely admirably in my view for the ATM, despite a barrage of questions from the bench around the NITIGRIT, the NITIGRITies. You're not going to call me Dr NITIGRITies. They're around the NITIGRITies of the report. I can start laughing now. So, yeah, look, there are various arguments that can be made around this report. And it's quite interesting to take a look at how the ATM, the EFF for what it's worth, replied to the president because I really do think that they have important arguments to make. And I want to take you to some of what the president said and how the parties replied today. So the first thing the president said yesterday, which was quite startling, was that this report is final in effect.

4:05That flies against everything that we know about preliminary, independent panel reports. The president's argument was that because it triggers an impeachment committee, it has this final legal effect and, therefore, it should be treated similar to a final report. But it's a preliminary report. The constitutional court in EFF3, which by the way, this constitutional court judgment has just been thrown out of the window. It's like not even useful anymore. Somehow, the president in these various pieces of litigation has managed to resign a whole judgment of the constitutional court written by EFF justice to, ah, a mere recommendation that you can just kind of ignore, really. So, the report is inherently preliminary. You cannot have a more preliminary legal institution than a report that recommends nothing other than that, an investigation happens, and that investigation itself will make

5:07another recommendation. So it's a recommendation before another recommendation. If that's not preliminary, then nothing is preliminary in the legal world. But it's called a preliminary report. That's what it's called in the National Assembly Rules. It's a preliminary independent report. Rule 129D says, the panel is established, quote, to conduct a preliminary inquiry. It's not final. Rule 129G1B, quote, the panel must conduct a preliminary inquiry and, quote, make a recommendation where the sufficient evidence exists. EFF3, likewise says, it's a preliminary inquiry. Maya, paragraph 130, confines the panel to a preliminary assessment. So I just don't know,

6:09you know, that requires further investigation. That's inherently preliminary. And so, you know, if this court is going to say this report is final, it's just going to fly in the face of the constitutional court judgment and the rules, which hold it out as an inherently preliminary legal institution. Yes, it has an effect. But if we're going to define final and effect as everything that has an effect, then nothing is preliminary anymore. Everything is final in that case. Of course, one decision leads to another decision, and that decision leads to another decision. But the question is, what is the ultimate effect of that decision? It's not final in that it doesn't impeach the president. Any of its factual findings can be overturned, and it doesn't establish anything finally. It simply says, hey, we think there's sufficient evidence for the next stage. And that can be overturned at the next stage very easily. So that's one of the things that the opposing parties said today, and let's see what the Western K-Piacourt says.

7:12There was an interesting debate about what the role of the speaker is versus the role of the panel, versus the role of the committee. But I got the sense that I don't know. The bench again just didn't read the Constitution. I don't know if they didn't know. I'm not going to say they didn't read it. But they weren't particularly interested in the constitutional court's own judgment on this question. Let's go to the constitutional court judgment, because I think that is very, very important to have a look at. And what the constitutional court says about the speaker is that she does not have a role in evaluating the evidence. So the argument made yesterday, and some questions from the bench today was, well, the speaker already has to look at a primafasci case. So why would the independent panel duplicate that function? But it's very clear, firstly, that the speaker doesn't look at a primafasci case.

8:16She looks at if evidence primafasci shows impeachable conduct. But the constitutional court admittedly not deciding that question looked very carefully at what the speaker's role is, and concluded that the speaker's role is one of, quote, screening for compliance. And that's how Maya puts it in her judgment. So red in context, rule 129A, which is about what the speaker does, is about the formal compliance of the motion. It has nothing to do with the speaker looking at the evidence, weighing it up, and deciding whether there's enough evidence for the next step. The speaker accepts the motion, checks if it's formally compliant, and whether if on its face, not the face of the case, on the face of the motion itself, establishes impeachable conduct. That once that screening function is done, not according to me, according to the constitutional court, it goes to the panel for an evidentiary weighing

9:17assessment. So the speaker's role is one of screening for compliance, and nothing more than that. So it seems that there is a misunderstanding arising between what is the difference between the speaker and the panel and the panel and the committee. On the one hand, you can't conflate the speaker with the panel, because the speaker plays a screening role, and the panel plays a preliminary evidentiary weighing role. But you also shouldn't conflate the panel with the committee, because the panel plays a preliminary evidentiary weighing role, but it doesn't play a final veracity role. So a lot of the questions from the bench today was, is there enough evidence? Is this in some ways conclusively proven? The report doesn't need to conclusively prove anything. It just needs to show that there is enough evidence to warrant a public inquiry. So its findings can only ever be preliminary. It could never, based on its powers, based on what it's required to do in the rules. It could never find

10:18conclusive evidence for anything, and that's not what it's required to do under the scheme of the rules. So that was another interesting debate that unfolded today. Just looking through some of the other points from the bench, one of the key ones was that the independent panel strayed beyond the four corners of the charges that were brought before the president. Now, this is an interesting one, because again, one cannot expect the person laying the impeachment charges against the president to be fully cognizant of all the possible evidence in advance. Just like a person, even though this is not a criminal trial, just like a person who may lay a criminal complaint at a police station, may not know all of the evidence in advance, but they may say, I've seen certain things, and I think that there could be a crime here. Now, does that mean that once that crime has been fully investigated, and once in the case of

11:21this independent panel, the version of the president and the version of other people is brought in, and that version starts to implicate even deeper questions about the four charges, that the panel is constrained from considering those deeper questions, because the person who laid the charges initially didn't know about how deep those charges went. That just seems in-nemical to the whole process of trying to establish veracity and in-nemical to the process of presidential accountability. I'm not saying that you can lay one charge, and then later down the line, you know, make allegations about a completely different, unconnected, separate charge. But that's not what has happened in these charges. What has happened is that four charges have been brought, evidence has been attached to those charges, but in the course of the president submitting his own evidence, and other witnesses submitting their own versions, more things have

12:21been found, and more worrying questions have emerged. The panel reflects on those worrying questions as they relate to the four charges. It's a little bit more complex than just saying, oh well, this is the wording of the four charges, and this doesn't completely comply with the wording of the four charges. Any investigative body is entitled to understand the implication of those charges, especially in the light of subsequent evidence or subsequent versions. There's a judgment that I don't have in front of me, but that comes to mind from Judge Nugent, which I think is an amalien guardian matter, where Nugent says, you are not conducting an investigation, unless you have an open mind. If you don't have an open mind, then you're not conducting an investigation, you're doing a mechanical exercise. Every investigative body, even a preliminary investigating body, is entitled to have an open mind about where charges may lead, even if they lead in a direction, which is even more serious, then it was initially pleaded, as long as there's some kind of logical

13:27rational connection back to the original charges. Now, let's take a look at the kind of questions that we've got from the bench today, and let's have a look at Kessler Paramalsami, the ATM's excellent advocate, who did a spirited job in my view in explaining that there's a problem with cultures, there's a problem with bafflers, there's a problem with international trips, there's a problem with clear violations of provisions of the law, but my goodness, he faced a barrage of questions from skeptical judges. Let's have a look. If you're engaged in concealing money in a cart, you're doing so because you don't want to fall far off the contravention of other paid work, the source of the money is the key of the shows that you've done at the paid work. Where is the evidence that the president engaged in stashing or concealing the money in a cart? The only version put up in that regard is that of the president, and that version is that

14:34Mr. Lovu decided off his own bat because he was going to go and leave and wasn't so sure the money would be safe in the safe because other people had access to the safe. That's the version. Decided the best place to do it would be to stash in the president's residence in a spare bedroom in a cart. Where is the evidence that the president knew that that is what was planned, that the president directed, that that is what must happen, that the president exceeded to that, was an accomplice to that. Where is the evidence that the president was at all involved in that? That he even knew that this happened? The answer is that the panel thought that the president's version was not believable, and it uses the words on probabilities. So it says, for example, at paragraph 120, 109, team, in the circumstances we find as a matter

15:39of probabilities that the money was in fact concealed inside a leather sofa as the suspect who was interviewed stated in the audio flip provided to us. 120, on a probability, we do not think that Mr. Lovu, a large manager, would have defied the president's instruction to keep the money on the farm and in the safe as is the normal practice and decide on his own to store the money inside the president's private. So there you go and again excellent answers, but wow, where is the evidence about the money and the couch and the president? It's his farm. You can't on the one hand say, this is a family farm and it's his farm and he's the sole member of the CC, but he doesn't know what's going on on the farm either. And yet it's okay if his state funded bodyguard is also investigating on the farm at the same time.

16:43But I mean the report does actually deal with that at paragraphs 115 to 118. I'll take you to one paragraph which is 117 from the report. It says the information presented by the president on the storage of the money is vague and leaves unsettling gaps. Yeah, on his version it would appear that he instructed Mr. Lovu to have the money stored on the farm pending the return of Mr. Mr. Lovu decided that the money must be stored in the president's private residence in a sofa below cushions. It is not clear whether the money was stored below the cushions or inside the sofa. If a sum of $580,000 in cash money was stored below the cushions, it would have been visible to anyone passing by. You see the problem with the president's account is that his own account incriminates him. He tells us the money he no one else, he tells us the money was stored below the cushions of a sofa. So that's not in dispute, that's evidence. But how can $580,000

17:50be below the cushions? Can you see how that phrase makes it sound like, oh I just kind of put it on the couch there. $580,000 below cushions. How big are these cushions? They say on paragraph 118 on a probability the money was carefully stored inside the sofa in such a manner that no one would notice that there was money in the sofa which makes a lot of sense if you were trying to conceal money. It certainly wasn't below cushions, it was inside the couch. This means that the sofa would have been opened up underneath and the money stored inside the frame of the sofa. Thereafter the underneath cover would have had to be carefully replaced otherwise the money would fall out onto the floor. But why go through this process of turning the sofa upside down, opening it up and stuffing the inside of a sofa to store money that was destined for the bank shortly. This was a leather sofa, one suspect said. So I think one thing that has been really frustrating

18:56about the questions that have been asked to the opposition is they followed the following pattern. Yeah, but where's the evidence for this? Where's the countervailing evidence for that? Where's the slam dunk? Firstly, a preliminary inquiry doesn't need to find anything slam dunk. But secondly, the evidence is the president's own version. That's not hearsay, that's not inadmissible. And quite frankly, just so either the president admits to a lot which has to be taken into account by the panel. But where his version contains clearly and obviously implausible gaps, the mere fact that it is an affidavit does not mean that the panel has to believe it. If someone swears under oath that the sky is green, there's no reason for an independent preliminary panel to say, oh well, it's an affidavit. So tick the sky is green. I mean, below the cushions of a sofa, let's be real. You know what, I actually kind of

19:58even talk about this case anymore because it feels as if like when it comes to this president, there's just no way he's going to lose and there's just going to be special treatment. Unconscious probably, but dished out to him. And we can read this report to a blue in the face. We can think that there's an obvious case to answer on Palapala. There's an obvious need for a public inquiry, but you can find a legal technicality over anything and lawyers can look at anything and a hundred lawyers can look at the same thing and they can find a hundred different interpretations. But the ultimate question in this case, if you cut everything away, is should there be a public inquiry into these questions or not? And the resounding overwhelming answer to my mind is yes, because the public deserves to know and the president should be held to account given how how powerful his office is. So there we go. And EFF MKP argued today, I'll do a, or on the channel,

21:05we'll do a bit of an analysis of what they say and more of the case later tomorrow. Let me leave it there on the case for now. And let me move on to the Mazanga Commission, because we've got some clips that we want to show you from yesterday and all that happened. Godfrey Libya concluded his testimony. He's the former head of the hawks. And wow, yesterday was a spectacular capitulation on the part of Mr. Libya. He, you know, I thought Andrea Johnson collapsed in her testimony. Her version really collapsed, but Libya might just be taking, taking the cake at this point, because wow, I just sat back and I thought to myself, what is really going on in this country? By the way, Libya was the person in the hawks who was supposed to investigate Palapala, by the way. So I guess we now know why there was never a criminal

22:05prosecution. But how is it that one of the most powerful police people in our country could not explain some of the conversations he was having and again had these absurd gaps in his testimony that didn't make any logical sense? And, you know, I kind of originally started by feeling a bit sorry for Libya, because I was like, yeah, but look, he can't have been expected to know everything that was going on in the hawks. And maybe he had a hunch that this was happening. But the more the testimony unraveled, by the end of yesterday, if you watch the whole examination, you start to think, hold on a second. But now it looks like there's actually some kind of deeper relationship here that you're trying to defend or protect, or you don't have an explanation as to why this relationship with figures who have been named at the Mazangak commission appears to exist. So let's quickly break it down. Remember that on the 6th of December 2024, there was an

23:09arrest of Gatis Omulefe, a joint operation between GCI ops and the political killing task team. And while the political killing task team and GCI ops were conducting this arrest, the hawks intervened and appeared to try to interrupt this arrest. So the question is, who sent the hawks when there was already a legitimate police investigation going on? And what we learned from the commission is that Godfrey Libya got a call from Malcolm X to say that there are impostors masquerading as police who have gone to this house and are harassing Mr. Gatis Omulefe. Now, so far, I mean, that's a little the fact that Malcolm X had the direct number of Libya and he was able to call him, but never mind that the fact that Libya picked up the call and then listened to Malcolm X, that's one thing because I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have the head of the hawks on speed dial. But that's fine. Maybe they knew each other or something.

24:11That Libya acted on this is the real interesting question. Why did he act on this information? One can understand the call because obviously Malcolm X really wanted this to be stopped. And I'm sure he'll be quizzed as to why. But why did Libya act on the call? That is an intense mystery. Again, I don't know about you, but even if I did have the head of the hawks on speed dial, I couldn't tell him that there's just some operation going on and expect the hawks to go and, you know, how come that that call had so much weight? But then Libya also tells us that or the commission also tells us that there was a message then from Malcolm X to Libya which said King Yang Worsair, thanks you basically. And that raises questions about, and there were various calls between the two of them. And King Yang Worsair is also a pseudonym for Mr. Teto, who has come

25:15up at the commission before. And so the question is, why would Malcolm X be telling God for Libya, that this person who has been mentioned at the commission before, thanks you? That now starts to see him as if Libya knew that he was doing this not on behalf of Malcolm X, but on behalf of someone else who was talking to him via Malcolm X and that is an even more worrying proposition. And so check out this clip from the Masangha commission where these questions were canvassed. That is what you asked me, but now suddenly you're saying I'm being thanked by a Yang Worsair that I do not know. And I have no idea what this Yang Worsair would be thanking me for. You cannot talk about the hindsight, please general, you were an experienced police officer, why did you not ask him? I will not let you off on the faces of hindsight and all these other things. These excuses, why did you not ask him at that time? As an experienced officer, a commission,

26:18there is no set rules that this is the only way. I'm talking common sense, I'm talking common sense, and the common sense of someone with your experience, I'm not talking prescripts or rules here, please. Yes, in that common sense, which I exercised a description that I'm not putting him on any trial, so that is where I left it. This was about you, this was about you and how this painted you. This is associating you with a Yang Worsair that you say you did not know. And this was saying you are being thanked by this person that you did not know. So it was not about you letting Mr. Malcolm X off the hook. It was about you. What were you being thankful? And who on earth is this Yang Worsair? It's about you. I did not pursue that with him. I was just a comfortable that the information he provided

27:27seems to be something that he was a genius. The explanation you give is not cogent at all. So what I introduced to this debate with stands, which is that at face value, the impression that this creates subject to an explanation that you may give the impression this creates is that you and Mr. Malcolm X were working together with this Yang Worsair. Which is why Yang Worsair? Thank you. Once all of this had been put to bed. That's the impression it creates and you are not giving any cogent explanation for that. I will leave it at that. You've not answered the question why? Yes, I take what the chap has saying and then from my side, all what I can say is that I don't know this Yang Worsair. I've never met Yang Worsair. I don't know him.

28:33So if Malcolm X is related to him, it's Malcolm X. I was just getting information from Malcolm X like I will do from any other person, including those who are in custody, air commission. That is my position. Thank you. Next time someone asks you a different difficult question, just say I don't know this Yang Worsair. That must be the new, that must be the new meme. Let me see some of your comments. I know you've been... Hello commissioners, hello commissioners, hello Charlotte. Terrence spread the fire. You know this. We have someone who says I think Western Cape will bail the president down from South Dhania. You and me both. Look, let me also just hasten to add.

29:34I've actually, and I was saying this a little earlier today, I've been looking at a lot of constitutional court judgements from the last five years. And our courts are a fundamental pillar of democracy and they are doing excellent work, especially the highest court, on environmental rights, on labor rights, on expanding the frontiers of freedom in South Africa. For some reason, there's just a little blind spot when it comes to presidential accountability right now. So that's really my problem. I actually think that the exception is the is the jurisprudence around the president, which has in my view, diminished the need for accountability and elevated the identity of the president and the litigant above some principled constitutional concerns. But I also don't think we should now say the judiciary is captured and blah, blah, blah, no, no, no. One doesn't need to jump to extreme conclusions and those conclusions are wrong and false.

30:39My gripe is that the brilliant court system that we have and the excellent constitutional court that we have and constitution that we have is not is not being brought to bear on this president. Our constitution calls for scrupulous accountability and yet somehow this president continues to be able to slip the hook. And I'm not sure why in their interpretation of the law, judges are giving the president the benefit of the doubt. There are always legal gray areas and always questions where you need to make a judgment call. My view is that far too often the judgment call has gone in favor of the president, where it should have gone in favor of accountability. And that traces right back to the sealed bank statements litigation. Anyway, let's see, tomorrow is another day and maybe the judges will come with the same energy to the president's side and they will ask equally searching questions. On day one, they kind of start to off strong and they did ask some searching questions of the president but then they sat back and

31:40they definitely didn't have the same energy as they had today for the other side which by the way hasn't done anything wrong. They're just trying to get the president to be held accountable. Charlotte, Otherwithdrawal's commissioner. Charlotte also says, nitty gritties. Can I be the new doctor nitty gritty? Would that be too much to ask? Dorian says the judges ask probing questions though they're unfortunately are not giving the opportunity for the respondent advocates to be able to first fully lay out their case before questioning. Absolutely. Absolutely. And look, it is a given take with the bar and the bench. But if you're just peppering the bar with questions all the time, then sometimes you don't get the full benefit of a developed argument and that was the space that the president's council got yesterday. And again, advocate trend go over someone for whom I have the highest respect. He's a brilliant advocate. None of this is about him. It's about the wider important political questions in this case. Same for Jeff Badlund and Dumi Solutrily, the

32:46advocates representing the president. Following from Zimbabwe, by the way, tell me where you're following from. I think the judges decided to argue on an issue that shouldn't be the main focus, especially with the view of promoting accountability in mind. Could not agree more. The judges want to argue these technical legal points, whereas the overriding imperative is one of public accountability. And also the right to know. The public has a right to know whether the president has a good answer or a bad answer. The public has a right to know that answer. And it would be a travesty in my view if we never get to hear those answers because of some technical legal escape route. Vosmuzi says, but Vosmuzi, I won't jump to any conclusions. But his right must not stop him from accounting to South Africans as part of his work and stop delay tactics to stay in power until the end of his exactly. And you know, if we're not careful,

33:47this term is going to end and these court cases are just going to go all the way. But there was an interesting concession made by the president's, the president yesterday, and it's the following and it's something we predicted on this channel if you watch our analysis. For at the best for this president, the impeachment process will not stop. We will just have a new panel looking at the same information. And that will be another delay and another panel. And then what will happen? The president's going to try and probably review that panel. And we're going to be in this never-ending lack of accountability doom loop. Instead, we can just go to the impeachment committee and the public can get to know exactly what happened. And the president gets his right to be represented and to bring his case. And he's got a majority in that committee. He's got his political allies who will defend him to the hilt. And the public can is old enough and wise enough to get to the bottom of it. How long have we been going for? 36 minutes. Okay. Let's wrap it

34:49up soon. Can you dissect pun in very much intended? Shout out to my T. Jamie. Then Gabindek commission during the Mazlanga break. Oh, yeah, that's a great one because I see that their report has also been made public. So that's a good idea. I'll do that. Dr. Welsh, how do I support Nicholas? We need a discourse here at some stage about the forthcoming election to keep us occupied once Mazlanga finishes. Absolutely. Don't worry. You're in the right place. We are going to give you wall-to-wall election coverage. It's just a question of timing, but we have a lot planned for October and November and believe me, this will be the place to be for elections. I agree they're going to set him free. This is where we are. It wouldn't be the first time. My post says the reason why ANC loses power. Great point because as this frustrating legal process unfolds where judges and advocates debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, this has real world political consequences.

35:56And I think even if the president wins or loses this case, the fact that most people in South Africa think this is a delay strategy to avoid accountability is going to counter against the ANC and the election. So maybe the accountability that is so sorely needed will happen again at the ballot box rather than in the impeachment committee. I think it should happen in both places to be honest, but there you go. And I do think this election is going to serve up some serious shocks at the truly house. What's going on in the eastern Cape people? The IEC came out very strongly at a press conference to say, our deadlines are our deadlines and if you don't meet the deadline for candidate submission, then we can't help you. So it looks like a bubbling crisis that may come to ahead. That's love said it all. Yeah. Well, what can you say? SNW X during the break, please have my T.J. me on to dissect the revelations. Definitely we must bring my T.J. me back.

36:58Subscribe to the dissection. No, I'm not going to read that about judges. Judges are like the media asking Quinazzi about evidence. That's a good one. No, look guys. Let's let's like I say, it's a disappointing day because you kind of you kind of like here we go again based on on the way that the bench is approaching this matter, but hey, we can always be surprised. We can always be surprised. You're please tell me your thoughts on meaningful election electoral reform. If it was not late on a Thursday after a long week, we definitely do that. But let's postpone that for a later discussion. One more. Why isn't the president being brought forward to answer? Why is he not standing? Yeah,

38:02exactly. That's the point. And the Concord said to its credit, the president must go to the impeachment committee and we can deal with these things there. But somehow that judgment has been reversed. And now various courts are saying despite the fact that that judgment is there, well, ah, the impeachment committee must wait. It must hold public hearings. And now we're going to review the report and maybe we need a fresh panel and so back to square one. And then goodness only knows who that fresh panel is going to be and what they say. And let's just go to the impeachment committee once, guys, once. And you know what? The Marlanga Commission shows us that the only way to truly get accountability is to have a public inquiry, not to hide things under the table, under the carpet or under the couch, but to ventilate them in the open. The truth will set the president free or it will incriminate him. But but the fact is the fact is that's what we

39:03need to see in the open. And these questions will always be swirling around unless the president can go to some kind of public inquiry or some public platform and say this is exactly what happened. Because so far the affidavits that have been given to these various bodies just to have gaping gaps that cannot be ignored. Okay, fam. Your live chats always have that one person. Yeah, exactly. One person said leave Ramapossalo. No, no, let's not. There are people. There are people who support the president. That's fine. Open debate is welcome. Like I say, you're free to hold a different opinion and all of that. However, on this channel, or at least I firmly believe that accountability really matters in this instance. Okay, you know what, fam? Let us call it there.

40:05It's great to be with you. Thank you so much for supporting our streams. This is one thing I want to say at the end of this, the madanga streams are just massive. Today our court stream is massive. Let me know if you want more live court cases. You know, we've been working on this experiment where we are broadcasting more live court streams. And we just want to check how the audience for that is. But today was a resounding verdict that you're liking these court streams. So let us know if we should do more of those. Oh, yes, we've been nominated for a content creators award. Can you drop us a vote? Nyanara. Let me see how we vote. You visit content creator awards.co.zer. Follow the voting instructions. Each person has 50 votes max. Or SMS. YouTube 5 to 336 double two. That's 336 double two. Fam, it's always so great to be with you. Let's keep the faith.

41:17This country is terrifying at times, but there's still so much to be proud of. Still so much to defend. Still so much to build. And we will build it in the comments if it is not built out on the streets. So fam, see you on the next one. And thank you once again for joining me. Like share, subscribe.