Complaint to SAPS against City Press, for Criminal Defamation & Fraud; RE: ‘Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial’

Audi Alteram Partem: Complaint to SAPS against City Press, for Criminal Defamation & Fraud; RE: “Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial” article

by Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

I filed a complaint with the South African Police (SAPS): Criminal Charges: Malicious Defamation and Fraud (CAS: 180-08-2010)

Accused:

1. City Press Newspaper: Charge: Defamation
   
2. City Press Editor: Ms. Ferial Haffajee: Charge: Defamation
   
3. City Press Journalist: Ms. Khadija Bradlow: Charge: Defamation and Fraud
   
4. City Press Alleged Anonymous Source Known only as: ‘Senior Legal Figure Present in Court’: Charge: Defamation

Plaintiff:

• Lara Johnstone, personal capacity; and on behalf of Radical Honesty – SA.

Defamation Publication Details:

• Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial , published: 2010-07-30 12:45, by Khadija Bradlow, City Press

Complaint Affidavit states as follows:

I am a 43 year old adult female unemployed paralegal, who sells wormeries and organic compost to make a very simple living. (Additional Info in Annex F: Heads of Argument: para 2, 3 & 4).

Save where appears from the context, the facts contained in this affidavit are within my own personal knowledge and are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and correct.

I am the only member – to my knowledge – of the Radical Honesty culture and religion currently living in South Africa (Annex: A: CCT 23-10: Concourt Chief Justice Order: 03 May 2010: Amicus Directions: Lara Johnstone: Member Radical Honesty Culture and Religion (p.2) (PDF).

City Press: Ms. Khadija Bradlow Representation:

At approximately 09:10 hrs on Friday 30 July 2010, I received a telephone call from a lady who said her name was Khadija Bradlow. She said she was a journalist for City Press.

It is my interpretation that Ms. Bradlows’ statement that she is a journalist, with City Press, means that she made the representation to me, that she is committed to SANEF’s Press Code of Professional Practice (Annex B: SANEF: Media Codes of Conduct: Press Code of Professional Practice (p.4)) (PDF).

She asked if I was Lara Johnstone, from Radical Honesty – SA. I said I was. She asked whether I had filed a Radical Honesty – SA Amicus Curiae in the Reitz Four matter. I confirmed I did. She said she had gotten my telephone number from the State Prosecutor in the Reitz Four trial, Mr. Johan Kruger, who had provided her with only two pages of the Radical Honesty Amicus, could I please email her a PDF of the entire Amicus. I confirmed I would do so, and gave her my email address.

At approximately 09:17 hrs, I received her email, titled, Khadija Bradlow email address (Annex: C: RE: Khadija Bradlow Email address (p.1)). I replied (Annex: C) by providing her a pdf copy of the Amicus, as an attachment: (Annex D: Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae to Bloemfontein Magistrates Court: Case #: 21-709-08: State v. S. van der Merwe, J. Roberts, RC Malherbe, D. Grobler: Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit & Proof of Service (p.13)) (PDF).

I never received any further correspondence from Ms. Bradlow. I saw an article on City Press website titled, Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial, (Annex E: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial, published: 2010-07-30 12:45, by Khadija Bradlow, City Press (p.1)) (PDF) and realized that the representation provided to me by Ms. Bradlow that she abides by the SA Press Code was a blatant falsehood. She had lied to me.

Intentional and malicious deception is extremely offensive to people in the Radical Honesty culture. Radical Honesty as a culture practice 100% transparency, consequently we do not object to any reporter writing anything controversial (if true) whatsoever, nor do we withhold truthful controversial information from anyone, whether reporters, voters, friends, family or enemies. When we say ‘we practice transparency’, we mean it, warts and all. We consider deception and secrecy, and withholding of key facts and information to be extremely offensive. By practicing transparency we begin by holding ourselves accountable, before we attempt to hold others accountable.

City Press: Fraud and Defamation Allegations:

It is my perspective that Ms. Khadija Bradlow and City Press violated the following Press Code of Professional Codes of Conduct, as stated in her ‘journalist’ representation:

1. Reporting of News

1.1 The press shall be obliged to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.

1.2 News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner, without an intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by:

1.2.1 distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation;
1.2.2 material omissions; or
1.2.3 summarisation.

1.3 Only what may reasonably be true having regard to the sources of the news, may be presented as facts, and such facts shall be published fairly with due regard to context and importance. Where a report is not based on facts or is founded on opinions, allegation, rumour or supposition, it shall be presented in such manner as to indicate this clearly.

1.5 A newspaper should usually seek the views of the subject of serious critical reportage in advance of publication; provided that this need not be done where the newspaper has reasonable grounds for believing that by doing so it would be prevented from publishing the report or where evidence might be destroyed or witnesses intimidated.

1.11 A newspaper has wide discretion in matters of taste but this does not justify lapses of taste so repugnant as to bring the freedom of the press into disrepute or be extremely offensive to the public.

2. Discrimination

2.1 The press should avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people's race, colour, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or preference, physical or mental disability or illness, or age.

2.2 The press should not refer to a person's race, colour, ethnicity, religion, gender sexual orientation or preference, physical or mental illness in a prejudicial or pejorative context except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported or adds significantly to readers' understanding of that matter.

3. Advocacy

A newspaper is justified in strongly advocating its own views on controversial topics provided that it treats its readers fairly by:
3.1 making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable;
3.2 not misrepresenting or suppressing relevant facts;
3.3 not distorting the facts in text or headlines.

5. Headlines, posters, pictures and captions

5.1 Headlines and captions to pictures shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or picture in question.
5.2 Posters shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the reports in question.

Defamatory Statements Violating SA Press Code of Conduct Representation:

Title: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial

The sentencing of the Reitz Four was briefly postponed in the Bloemfontein magistrates court this morning after a little-known group calling itself “Radical Honesty” made an eleventh hour attempt to be admitted as a friend of the court.

In its founding affidavit the group accuses media of “spitting on cultures”, attacks the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and calls the trial against the four men “a grave injustice”.

According to Radical Honesty, the trial of the four men is politically motivated and is tantamount to the oppression of white Afrikaners.

The organisation’s Lara Johnstone says the men are used as scapegoats in a race war.

A senior legal figure present in court dismissed the last ditch application as a publicity stunt by a fringe group wanting to draw attention to themselves.

Implied Meaning by City Press, about the Radical Honesty – SA Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of both Plaintiffs and Four Defendants:

ONE: That Radical Honesty is a ‘right wing’ group, where ‘right wing’ is meant as a coded derogatory statement.

The Radical Honesty Amicus provides detailed information, with links to original documents for how Radical Honesty is neither a ‘right wing’, or ‘left wing’ cultural group, but a culture of individuals, from all political persuasions, including extreme left and right, blacks, whites, religious and atheist, all of whom are committed to resolving their disagreements non-violently by means of ‘Practicing Radical Honesty’. We may be a small culture, but we are indeed a ‘rainbow culture’ founded on practicing truth-telling and sincere forgiveness, for our own benefit. The Amicus Founding Affidavit (Annex D) paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 clearly provide detailed evidence for the rainbow nature of our culture, to uphold the rule of law for individuals from the far left to far right, in-between, different cultures, races and religions.

TWO: Radical Honesty – RSA Amicus had attempted to scupper disrupt / upset / wreck / ruin) the Reits trial.

To the contrary, the Amicus wanted to make sure that Justice was not only done, but was seen to be done. Citizens lose respect for the administration of justice, when they perceive that they are incapable of getting a free and fair trial, but are found guilty by sensationalist and deliberately falsified ‘news reports’ which withhold key facts, and create a socio-political legal atmosphere where Judicial officials are pressured to be biased or face the consequences of a community ignorant of the facts thanks to the media’s race war sensationalism. The Radical Honesty Notice of Motion (Annex: D) paragraphs: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 provide an overview of the Amicus’ intentions, including to inform the magistrate of information currently being censored by the South African media, such as the contents of the Radical Honesty – SA Amicus Curiae before the Constitutional Court (Annex F), which alleges that South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation was not sincere, but fake and posed; and additionally provides the court with detailed evidence about how many of SA’s media editors confirm their ‘deliberate indifference to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being political and legally persecuted and prosecuted.’

THREE: That Radical Honesty accuses the media of “spitting on cultures”; i.e. all cultures.

Radical Honesty Amicus accused the media of “spitting on cultures who practice sincere forgiveness and root cause problem solving”. (Annex: D: Notice of Motion: Closing paragraph). The difference in meaning is significant.

FOUR: That Radical Honesty ‘attacked the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’; i.e. a violent verbal assault, without any justification, totally unjustified and without rational, rhyme or reason, or detailed evidence to backup the allegation.

The Radical Honesty – RSA Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court provides detailed evidence for its allegations about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission bias and lack of impartiality, which was honourably provided to numerous members of the Truth Commission, for their attention and response.

Evidentiary information which (a) documents the TRC’s bias and lack of impartiality towards the SADF, the IFP and ANC members who had been detained, tortured, raped and executed in ANC prison camps such as Camp Quatro, in Angola; and (b) documents the TRC’s total disregard for any enquiry into the demographic origins of apartheid, or the subsequent political violence.

The Amicus also includes information about my original perception of the TRC and representation to the TRC:

“I filed my submission to the TRC on 18 January 1999, wherein I detailed my willingness to donate my entire inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness.”

FIVE: That Radical Honesty alleged – without any evidence, justification, rhyme or reason, just pure thumbsucking – that the trial of the four men is politically motivated and is tantamount to the oppression of white Afrikaners.

The Radical Honesty Amicus provides detailed evidence, justification and reasons for its aforementioned conclusions.

[SIX] That Radical Honesty again alleged – without any evidence, justification, rhyme or reason, just pure thumbsucking – that the [Reitz four] men are used as scapegoats in a race war.

Again, the Radical Honesty Amicus to the Constitutional Court on these matters – which has been totally censored by the SA Media – provides detailed reasons and evidence for the argument that South Africa’s ‘reconciliation’ was fake, not sincere, and that South Africans’ are living in a state of war, and that Afrikaners are discriminated against.

Implied Representation to Readers of ‘Senior Legal Figure’:

I allege that the ‘senior legal figure’, if s/he exists, implies a meaning by CityPress of a Senior Council of the Bar. I allege the person’s comment to the media was unethical and in violation of the Bar Code’s Uniform Rules of Professional Conduct (PDF), and (b) they requested to remain anonymous, knowing their statement if accompanied by the required descriptive authority, such as ‘senior legal figure’, would be defamatory, in its Asch Paradigm[8] consequences.

To the layman CityPress reader an anonymous source referred to as a ‘senior legal figure’, would provide greater authority, implying greater reasons to take such statement serious as undisputed gravitas authority, than for example a source such as ‘unemployed visitors to court’. ‘Senior legal figure’ implies the person is a Senior Counsel, who is directly involved in the legal matter, and consequently is fully informed about all the relevant documentation and evidence. A reader would then conclude that such a ‘Senior Counsel’ has high ethical standards and knowledge about the law, providing an ‘air of credibility’[9] for the particular opinion such Senior Counsel expressed. In numerous studies, such as those of Solomon Asch[10], Stanley Milgram[11] and Philip Zimbardo[12], it has been shown that the majority of society (92% in Milgram test) do not have the skills or capabilities to resist peer pressure, or to resist the opinions of someone they consider an ‘authority’ on any matter. Only 8% (Milgram test) possess the skills and competencies to question perceived irregular authority. When multiple or at least contradictory points of view are provided – like in a court of law – the reader has to hear both sides and draw a conclusion from the evidence presented. The reader, in short, is required to ‘think’.


Ethics & Professionalism of ‘Senior Legal Figure’:

The General Council of the Bar of South Africa: Uniform Rules of Professional Conduct (PDF) requires the following code of conduct from Advocates (a) towards other ‘counsel’, including I imagine ‘Pro Se’ council (citizens representing themselves), on (b) statements or comments to the media, (c) and if commenting in the media, they should not ‘pre-judge the result’.

4.12 Ill-feeling and Personalities between Counsel

Clients, not counsel, are the litigants. Whatever may be the illfeeling existing between clients it should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct and demeanour towards each other or towards suitors in the case. All personalities between counsel should be scrupulously avoided. In the trial of a cause it is improper to allude to the personal history or the personal peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of counsel on the other side. Personal colloquies between counsel which cause delay and promote unseemly wrangling should also be carefully avoided.

4.18.3 Non-Iegal Publications

(d) Members of the Bar should not write articles in nonlegal publications with regard to pending cases nor cases where the time for appeal has not expired.

(e) It is contrary to professional etiquette for counsel to engage in newspaper correspondence or to issue press statements on the subject of cases in which they are or have been themselves concerned as counsel.

(f) It is undesirable for a member to express an opinion in the press, by letter, article, interview or otherwise on any matter which is still pending in the Courts. Notwithstanding the aforegoing, a member may express an opinion in the media, in general terms, on an issue which is still pending, provided that the member does not thereby purport to pre-judge the result.

4.21 Statements and comments to the media

4.21.1 A member must not issue statements to any news or current affairs media in connection with any matter in which he/she is or has been briefed or instructed.

What might readers think of the credibility, or the ethics and integrity, of an anonymous source referred to as ‘Senior Legal Figure’ in court, i.e. a Senior Counsel, who is violating the General Council of the Bar’s Professional Code of Conduct, and if reported, could possibly be disbarred? How ‘ethical’ is this anonymous source?


Implied Meaning by ‘Senior Legal Figure’, about the Radical Honesty – SA Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of both Plaintiffs and Four Defendants:

[SEVEN]: That pre-judgement of minority groups is legally justified. Because Radical Honesty is a small cultural group, who stands up for a free and fair trial for individuals perceived as being scapegoated by the media, such a small group’s opinion and evidentiary justification, is unworthy of being given impartial treatment by judicial institutions, or ‘senior legal figures’ and hence even less so by any reader.

I never sent the Amicus Curiae to any media publications or to any journalists; only to the individuals as referred to on the Notice of Motion (Annex D). I also transparently published the information to my blog, Why We Are White Refugees: Radical Honesty - RSA Amicus filed in Reitz Four matter.

I am unaware if the anonymous ‘senior legal figure’ in fact exists and was accurately quoted by Ms. Bradlow; and if so, what professional legal relationship the ‘senior legal figure’ has to the Reitz 4 matter.

The Radical Honesty – SA Amicus to the Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court (Annex D) informs the court and parties that the Radical Honesty – SA Constitutional Court Amicus (Annex F) is supported by expert witness affidavits and statements, by Dr. Brad Blanton and Dr. Michael Maher.

Fringe (peripheral, extreme, radical, marginal, unconventional) group: Not too long ago, Dr. Blanton was on Swedish television with the Swedish Prime Minister in a discussion on honesty in politics and government transparency. Perhaps the ‘senior legal figure’ actually considers the issues of sincere forgiveness and transparency to be ‘fringe’ issues. Perhaps the ‘Senior Legal Figure’ also considers Mensa -- a small group who, like Radical Honesty - also have strict group membership entry requirements, i.e. a focus on quality, not quantity -- a ‘fringe’ group. Irrespective the ‘senior legal figure’ was violating the Bar’s Professional Code of Conduct, knew the gravity that accompanied his statement to citizens ignorant of the fact that he was violating his Professional Code of Conduct, i.e. acting unethically, and perhaps had an undisclosed conflict of interest:

i. Written Statement by Consent of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness to: Practicing Radical Honesty and Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger and Forgiveness; and Paradigms and Contexts: The Revolution of Consciousness [PDF]

ii. Written Statement by Consent of T. Michael Maher, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness for How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue [PDF]

iii. Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test; in terms of Criminal Procedure Act 51, of 1977: § 213: Proof of Written Statement by Consent; & § 171 & 172: Evidence on Commission [PDF]

Contacting all Parties for Comment:

I do not know if State Prosecutor Johan Kruger, or Defence Attorney Mr. Christo Dippenaar or Advocate Kemp J. Kemp, were contacted by City Press for comment.

I was not contacted for my personal or Radical Honesty – SA comment, even though the ‘journalist’ had access to my contact details.


Magistrate Hinxa’s Statement to the court: RE: Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae, as reported by other publications:

Sentencing of Reitz four delayed, published on the Web by IOL on 2010-07-30 09:28:06

The sentencing of the four former University of Free State students known as the Reitz Four was delayed on Friday morning.

Chief magistrate Mziwonke Hinxa told the court that a crucial document has reached his office and that the defence and the state would first have to discuss this in chambers.

State prosecutor Johan Kruger also confirmed that he had these documents and that it was best to adjourn for a short time to discuss it in chambers.

Hinxa then adjourned the court for them to meet in his chambers.

Reitz four fined R20 000 each, Andre Grobler, SAPA, 31 Jul 2010

Earlier, sentencing was delayed for the magistrate and legal teams to discuss a document send to court by Lara Johnstone from Radical Honesty SA.

Johnstone wanted the magistrate to take special notice of the media’s role in finding the former students guilty before the trial and reprimand it for doing so.
Hinxa said the court took note of the document but it had no bearing on this week’s proceedings. – Sapa

UFS victims smile after verdict, Andre Grobler, SAPA, 2010-07-30
Media’s role

The complainants in the matter still did not want to speak to the media, but there were "smiles on their faces".

Earlier, sentencing was delayed for the magistrate and legal teams to discuss a document sent to court by Lara Johnstone from Radical Honesty SA.

Johnstone wanted the magistrate to take special notice of the media's role in finding the former students guilty before the trial and, among others, reprimand it for doing so.

Hinxa said the court took note of the document but it had no bearing on this week's proceedings.

SA Press Council: Press Ombudsman

I have not contacted the Press Ombudsman in the matter, for two reasons:

ONE: I filed a complaint with them once before. I was unaware of an article an anonymous SAPA news reporter had written about me, which had blatant errors. When I found out about it, because it is on the internet at MyBroadband.co.za, I wrote to SAPA Editor, Mr. Mark van der Velden (09-06-05: RE: (I) Request to SAPA: News Article: 19 July 2007: (II) Honourable Transparency RSA Media Enquiry (PDF)). I requested that SAPA provide (a) the evidence for their statements in the article; and (b) the name of the journalist, so she could provide me with the names of her anonymous sources who had made the false statements against me. Mr. van der Velden refused. SAPA said that the journalist who wrote the story was a ‘stringer’ and was working illegally in violation of her employment contract with her full-time media employer, and consequently he could not divulge her/his name, because it would mean s/he would lose her/his job. Mr. van der Velden also said that it was irrelevant if the article was incorrect, because it was two years ago, nobody remembered the original article, so why bother printing a correction. He ignored the fact the article is online, and is the first article that comes up on google, on a search under my name.

I filed a complaint with the Press Ombudsman Mr. Thloloe (RE: SAPA alleged guilty of: (i) Erroneous Reporting & Refusal to Impartially Enquire into Errors, or Correct its Erroneous Reporting; (ii) Reporting & 'Credible News' selection, that is Predisposed to Extreme Bias and Prejudice; and (iii) fraudulent representation, of "If SAPA knows ... South Africa Knows ... " (PDF)) and (09-06-17: Additional Evidentiary Info to Official Complaint to the Press Council of South Africa: The Press Ombudsman (PDF)). Mr. Thloloe refused to hold a hearing or make any enquiry into my allegations, because he alleged I had ‘provided insufficient grounds for condoning late lodging.’ No right to appeal his decision was provided (Annex G: Email from Ombudsman: RE: Complaint against SAPA. (p.1))

TWO: On 16 March 2010, I contacted Dr. Johan Retief, Deputy Ombudsman, former lecturer at the Department of Journalism, Stellenbosch University, and author of Media Ethics: An Introduction to Responsible Journalism, and provided him with a PDF copy of the report I had sent to Min. of Citizenship and Immigration, Canada, copied to others, including Mr. Brandon Huntley’s counsel, Attorney Russel Kaplan. (Annex: H: Att: Press Ombudsman, SA Press Council; RE: For Your Records and Information (p.2), including attachment (not included, but PDF link available): For the Record Memo: ‘Beyond Milgram Belief’: 140 SA Editors, Politicians, Academics et al confirm they are Deliberately Indifferent to the Rule-of-Law; have No Objections to SA Governments persecution of ‘Radical Honesty White Refugee’ (“RHWR”) (PDF). I never received any response from Dr. Retief. Perhaps he does not think it is new worthy of investigation if a citizen is being legally persecuted and prosecuted, and 140 of SA’s elite politicians and academics have no objections to such persecution. I don’t know.


Radical Honesty Culture: Resolution of Disagreements: Conflict of Law:

Preference Choice of Cultural Law: Radical Honesty: It is my preference to resolve misunderstandings and disagreements by means of Radical Honesty Cultural Social Contract: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness (PDF). However Radical Honesty cultural resolution of disagreements by non-violent honest expression of anger, have not been well received by individuals from other South African cultures, who prefer different cultural methods to resolve their disagreements. My expressions of Radical Honesty emotional truth of anger, expressed nonviolently have led to charges and convictions for ‘contempt in facie curiae’ and ‘crimen injuria’, where both magistrates ignored my cultural practices, and imposed theirs. (The details of these conflict of culture’s issue is explained in detail in the Radical Honesty – SA Application to the Concourt (Annex: F) particularly under points: [V] Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion, or Refugee Status?: (A) Radical Honesty Culture of Forgiveness Banned in SA Multi-Culture Courts: para 80 – 85; (B) 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee: para 86 – 100).

Accordingly if the individuals herein charged have no objections to resolving the matter by means of Radical Honesty, the matter can be so resolved, out of court. However, it is better I obtain their prior unequivocal consent, or I may yet again be misinterpreted as ‘insulting someone’s dignity’, for simply wanting to inform them of my honest anger at what I perceive, from the information available to me, to be their duplicitous unethical behaviour, so as to sincerely forgive them.

If however they object to resolving the matter by means of Radical Honesty, they leave me no alternative but to attempt to resolve the matter as herein alleged.

Annexures:

• (Annex: A: CCT 23-10: Concourt Chief Justice Order: 03 May 2010: Amicus Directions: Lara Johnstone: Member Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, (p.2) (PDF).
  
• (Annex B: SANEF: Media Codes of Conduct: Press Code of Professional Practice (p.4)) (PDF).
  
• (Annex: C: RE: Khadija Bradlow Email address (p.1))
  
• (Annex D: Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae to Bloemfontein Magistrates Court: Case #: 21-709-08: State v. S. van der Merwe, J. Roberts, RC Malherbe, D. Grobler: Notice of Motion, Founding Affidavit & Proof of Service (p.13)) (PDF ).
  
• (Annex E: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial, published: 2010-07-30 12:45, by Khadija Bradlow, City Press (p.1)) (PDF)
  
• (Annex F: Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae to Constitutional Court: Case CCT 23-10: Citizen v. Robert McBride: Filing Sheet, Practice Note and Heads of Argument for Lara Johnstone, in support of Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 (p.56)) (PDF)
  
• (Annex G: Email from Ombudsman: RE: Complaint against SAPA. (p.1))
  
• (Annex: H: Att: Press Ombudsman, SA Press Council; RE: For Your Records and Information (p.2))
  
• (Annex: I: Letter from International Criminal Court: Office of the Prosecutor: Case 0TP-CR-203/10: 14 June 2010 (p.1))

Disclosure: Andrea Muhrrteyn is the Nom de Plume for Lara Johnstone, the author of the complaint to the SAPS herein referred to.

» » » » [Complaint to SAPS: CAS: 180-08-2010 (PDF)]