Senzwa🇿🇦📞

@MickyJnr__ Morocco is not a footballing nation. They are bullies, remember what they did to Senegal at AFCON. They think they are Europeans

@SLe32029 Don’t disrespect Matthews

If I’m a fullback, I’d rather face Matthews than Maseko and Nkota.

Crazy how her side is called "allegations" but his side is being called "facts" and the "full story"

I find it interesting (derogatory) that an actor accusing several male colleagues of sexual inappropriateness and/or assault is read as a ‘pattern’ on her part rather than a pervasive culture of sexual deviancy in the acting spaces.

Weaponising her past allegations? 🙂 He explicitly says “similar allegations have been made by Ms. NokweMseleku against other actors… and the pattern is deeply troubling.” This is textbook smear. Even if true, it has zero relevance to whether this boundary was crossed on this night. It’s designed to make people dismiss her without looking at the evidence of this incident. Dirty tactic. “Police investigated, no prosecution” as proof of innocence! He makes sure to highlight he was interviewed, gave a statement, and authorities didn’t prosecute. Not being charged is not the same as “nothing happened.” Many real incidents in he-said-she-said situations with no physical evidence never reach court. Using the legal outcome as moral clearance while ignoring production’s own internal admission that his behaviour was “unprofessional” is a legal technicality loophole. Playing the victim of “false accusations” while sounding compassionate 🤣 He starts with “I stand by victims of sexual assault” and ends with how devastating this has been for him as a husband and father. It’s the “I’m the real victim here” pivot. He claims he tried to “hold space” for her distress about “broader industry pressures.” It’s giving maybe she’s traumatised by the industry, not by me, so her pain is real but misdirected at the wrong guy.

If you read this statement through pure logic, rather than a lens of impunity or victim-blaming, you will clearly clock that on the surface it looks calm, detailed, and professional. In reality, it’s packed with carefully crafted loopholes, omissions, deflections, and classic tactics that avoid the core allegation. Why is he framing it as a “fully clothed violent stunt scene”? He keeps calling it a stunt sequence choreographed with stunt coordinator, director, DP, etc. This downgrades a simulated sexual violence scene into “just action.” No mention anywhere of an intimacy coordinator, the industry standard for exactly these scenes to enforce sexual boundaries in real time. That omission is loud. You don’t treat a rape simulation like a fistfight and then act surprised when consent lines blur. “We offered a stunt double, she declined” ???? Classic responsibility shift. “She chose to do it herself.” Agreeing to perform the scene does not equal consenting to anything beyond the rehearsed moves. She has said the agreement was clear: push over the bonnet, whisper, out of frame, no pelvic thrusting. Offering a double doesn’t give the male lead licence to improvise sexual simulation!!!!! The “12+ crew members were watching” alibi??? He lists director, script supervisor, lighting, stunt coordinator, producer, sound & camera teams. “None observed or reported misconduct.” Translation: collective witnesses = I’m cleared. But if there was no intimacy coordinator whose job was to watch for exactly the sexual element, then 12 people watching a “stunt” doesn’t mean the agreed choreography wasn’t breached. Is this the fortress he’s hiding behind?!!! 👀 Group viewing of unedited footage cleared him?? “Representatives from Red Ink, MNET, SWIFT, agents… all confirmed no thrusting.” Again, who was in that room? Was it neutral? Was the actress there? Footages can be interpreted different ways, especially when production has incentive to protect the show. This is giving “we reviewed it internally and we’re good”, not independent verification. RELEASE THE UNEDITED FOOTAGE AND LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE!!!!

Interesting observation. In a Schedule 1 matter involving Fadiel Adams last week, the National Prosecuting Authority deployed three senior prosecutors to handle the bail hearing. Yet in a Schedule 5 matter involving high-profile accused persons and feared taxi bosses, the @NPA_Prosecutes, in its wisdom, dispatched a single prosecutor — with no apparent backup or support. And we are expected to believe the institution is genuinely concerned about the safety, wellbeing, and protection of its prosecutors? NB: If calling this an “attack on the NPA” is the chosen refrain, I shall wear the label as a badge of honour — and of valour.

Has the magistrate been removed yet? Cause she has to fall!

In point 2 you demonstrate an understanding of how pervasive sexual violence is in this country. Point 9 confirms her lived experience aligns with statistics. And you’re using it to *checks notes* cast doubt on her integrity? Interesting (derogatory).

@Bomikazi_ @KARABOBABO18 He won’t come back

@KARABOBABO18 Point me to where I blame anyone for whatever they believe.

I obviously believed Nirvana Nokwe when the allegations first came out. But now, after reading Bonko Khoza’s statement, I believe her even more.

This is how NPA should have reacted yesterday. Ask for sometime to gather information and not just throw the prosecutor under the bus

Decisive action is what we need to fix broken public institutions. This is what we meant when we said “We Need New Leaders”. Thoughtful, clear, decisive. Action without delay. 💪🏿

@gwexe_bongani @JackiePhamotse uyathatha qha kade

@Mawawa_ @JackiePhamotse It is clarifying the point. Stop drama

Bonko Khoza’s official statement. 📍

@LavasSaidIt @JackiePhamotse Let's wait and see that evidence.

@Mawawa_ @JackiePhamotse But if that’s what the evidence says🤷🏽‍♂️

@sztmas @bayher172325 @JackiePhamotse Let's hope he will prove that and bring the facts in due time. Perpetrators always go for your character when they want to dismiss you, kodwa sizobona.

@Mawawa_ @bayher172325 @JackiePhamotse It talks to a pattern.

@bayher172325 @JackiePhamotse What is the intention? how is that related to his case? is he not responding to his case? Does he have facts about other cases?

@Mawawa_ @JackiePhamotse How is he vilifying her if it’s a fact she has done it before ?

Anti intellectualism is also ridiculing instead of correcting people.

@ockymatsuvuki @MotsoAphi Without a doubt they did better than what we had before. A team as big as chiefs can’t be celebrating such rather look to do better hence the need for a head coach not the two pot system. That Nedbank Cup of Nabi puts him ahead. These guys were knocked out by Stellies twice😭

@Mawawa_ @MotsoAphi Remember they came with Nabi which means they are still in that period given to Nabi and before them no coach gone beyond 47poits for chiefs since 2021 of which this 2 has achieved something and there lots of improvements and promises to be OK

It'll be unfair for Kaizer Chiefs to allow the coaches to leave as easy as that without asking them if they will be able to stay for another season.

During the Frank Dialogue Roundtable discussion with Prof JJ Tabane 2 days ago, Julius Malema fielded a bad-faith question from Mike Sham, a known reactionary agitator, who accuses the EFF of being "committed to killing farmers". Malema responded eloquently, making two critical points: 1. There is no such policy in the EFF. 2. The "Kill the Boer" chant is a struggle song and was never meant to be taken literally. The Constitutional Court and lower courts have affirmed this. But then, Malema doesn't stop talking, and this is where it falls apart. Instead of being brief, Malema moves to reassure Sham that he's not interested in killing anyone because he (Malema) is just like White people: "If you want to kill a farmer, start with me. I've got more cows than you. And more cows than many Whites. So don't think when we talk farmer, we talk White person. So you want to kill a farmer, start with me. The EFF will have to start with me. I'm a farmer myself. And therefore, why would I want to kill myself? Why would I want to commit suicide?" This is a rhetorical tool that Malema uses frequently, as we saw in the now-infamous interview with Jacaranda FM in 2014 (x.com/SizweLo/status…). Now, there's a common understanding by those in the know that the rich and powerful have more in common with each other than they do with ordinary people. In the context of political leaders, powerful people like Malema have more in common with the oppressor than with the people they purport to lead. This is just the nature of class relations. It appears that Malema doesn't want to miss an opportunity to remind White people of this. Once again, in this segment, we see a leader who champions the majority Black poor and marginalised, yet uses his own elite socio-economic status as a shield. The problem with this is that when Malema flexes his asset wealth to argue that he couldn't possibly support killing farmers because he himself is a major farmer, he is affirming his solidarity with the upper class. In case anyone thinks I'm stretching this, consider that by bragging about his massive cattle ownership, Malema is placing himself on the same side of the fence as the wealthy White landowners he frequently castigates. He is saying, "Don't worry, I am a member of the landed gentry now too. I have too much capital skin in the game to burn the system down". Malema goes even further when he says, "If I'm going to kill Whites, I will have to start with the friends of my kids..." This exposes the dissonance in his political messaging. When you read this alongside his "more cows than many Whites" flex, you see a masterclass in a political leader speaking out of both sides of his mouth. First, his followers hear a Black leader who refuses to be intimidated by White anxiety. He presents his personal integration into elite spaces, with his children attending elite schools with White friends and his massive farm ownership, as aspirational proof that the historically oppressed can conquer the spaces previously reserved for the White minority. But, second, when you strip away the aggressive posture and look at the actual substance of what he is saying, you see that it is deeply reassuring to the status quo. By invoking his own children's social reality through "the friends of my kids", Malema admits that his daily life is profoundly intertwined with the very demographic his base believes he politically targets. He is weaponising his elitist proximity to White people to neutralise accusations of radical intent. He is saying to what he frequently refers to as "Whiteness": "Relax. I am a wealthy father with capital assets and deep social ties inside your world. I am not a threat to your lives or your system because my own family's comfortable existence depends on the stability of this exact societal fabric". My point is that to maintain political power, Malema must continue to do two things: On one hand, he must continuously stoke radical, anti-systemic rhetoric. But then, on the other hand, to maintain his material status as part of the country's ultra-elite, he cannot afford to actually break the system. He can talk about it for sure, but that's a different thing altogether. So, by constantly reminding White people of his cows, his life in the suburbs, his farming prowess, and his children's White friends, he is working hard to balance on a tightrope by convincing the poor he is going to war for them, while reassuring the wealthy that he is far too heavily invested in the bourgeois lifestyle to ever pull that trigger. A majestic win-win for the CIC.