Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced the release of over 230,000 files related to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in response to an executive order from President Donald Trump.

“The American people have waited nearly 60 years to see the full scope of the federal government’s investigation into Dr. King’s assassination,” Gabbard said. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are ensuring that no stone is left unturned in our mission to deliver complete transparency on this pivotal and tragic event in our nation’s history. I extend my deepest appreciation to the King family for their support.”

The files are being released as part of Trump’s commitment to release previously-classified documents related to King, as well as President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

The latest batch of files includes details about the investigation conducted by the FBI into King’s assassination.

CIA RELEASES DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS PER TRUMP ORDER ON ROBERT F KENNEDY ASSASSINATION

Some of the documents pertain to a discussion of potential leads, internal FBI memos regarding the progress of the case, and those related to James Earl Ray’s former cellmate, who stated he discussed an alleged assassination plot with Ray.

Additionally, the release has foreign evidence from Canadian police regarding Ray’s fleeing from the country after King’s assassination.

“The American people deserve answers decades after the horrific assassination of one of our nation’s great leaders,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Department of Justice is proud to partner with Director Gabbard and the ODNI at President Trump’s direction for this latest disclosure.”

DNI GABBARD REFERS INTEL OFFICIALS TO DOJ FOR PROSECUTION OVER ALLEGED LEAKS OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

King’s children, Bernice and Martin Luther King III, had previously opposed the release of the documents, and on Monday released a statement.

“We recognize that the release of documents concerning the assassination of our father, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., has long been a subject of interest, captivating public curiosity for decades,” the statement read on X. “As the children of Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King, his tragic death has been an intensely personal grief – a devastating loss for his wife, children, and the granddaughter he never met – an absence our family has endured for over 57 years. We ask those who engage with the release of these files to do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family’s continuing grief.”

DNI TULSI GABBARD REFERS ALLEGED INTELLIGENCE LEAKERS FOR PROSECUTION; DETAILS POSSIBLE MOTIVES

Gabbard announced in April that documents related to the 1968 assassinations of RFK and MLK would be released in the coming days, noting that over 100 people were “working around the clock” to scan paperwork related to both killings and subsequent investigations.

She told Trump during a cabinet meeting at the White House in April that the documents had been sitting in storage for decades and had never been scanned or seen prior.

Upon taking office, Trump issued an executive order to declassify files on the assassinations of King, a civil rights icon who was gunned down on April 4, 1968, outside his second-floor Tennessee hotel room in Memphis.

The newly released files can be viewed by visiting the National Archives website at www.archives.gov.

Hunter Biden exploded on George Clooney in a profanity-laced tirade during a podcast interview published Monday, accusing the actor of sabotaging his father’s re-election with “the blessing of the Obama team.”

“F—k him! F—k him and f—k everybody around him. I don’t have to be f—king nice. Number one, I agree with Quentin Tarantino. George Clooney is not a f—king actor. He is a f—king, I don’t know what he is, he’s a brand,” Hunter told Andrew Callaghan on his Channel 5 YouTube show.

The two were discussing Clooney’s infamous New York Times guest essay that became a key moment in the pressure campaign for Joe Biden to drop out of the race. The “Ocean’s 11” actor published the essay, which called for Biden to be replaced as the Democratic nominee, less than two weeks after the former president had a disastrous debate performance against President Donald Trump.

SETH MEYERS SKIPS ASKING GEORGE CLOONEY ABOUT BIDEN’S MENTAL DECLINE, NOT RECOGNIZING HIM AT FUNDRAISER

“It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fundraiser was not the Joe ‘big f–king deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate,” Clooney wrote.

Biden ultimately withdrew from the race on July 21, 2024, exactly one year ago Monday, and was replaced on the Democratic ticket by Kamala Harris.

Hunter unloaded on the actor, asking “why do I have to f—king listen to you?” and accusing him of having lied about his father experiencing memory lapses at a June 2024 fundraiser. The book “Original Sin” featured an anecdote in which President Biden had to be reminded of Clooney’s name at a fundraiser.

Hunter said Clooney made up the story to justify his self-insertion into the presidential campaign. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

“What do you have to do with f—king anything?… What right do you have to step on a man who’s given 52 years of his f—king life to the service of this country and decide that you, George Clooney, are going to take out basically a full-page ad in the f—king New York Times to undermine the president?” Hunter fumed.

The painter, whose was pardoned by his father over his gun and tax offenses in a reversal of an earlier pledge not to, noted Clooney was friends with former President Barack Obama and only published his essay with the “blessing of the Obama team.” 

“You know what George Clooney did? Because he sat down with, I guess, because he was given a blessing by the Obama team, the Obama people and whoever else,'” Hunter said. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

Hunter also claimed his father’s presidency was the most successful of his lifetime, moreso than Obama’s two terms.

The White House called out Hunter Biden after he slammed the Trump administration’s immigration policies in a recent web series interview.

The younger Biden echoed a popular Democratic talking point during a heated rant while appearing on Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan.

“Am I not supposed to feel for someone? Am I going to be like all these Democrats say, ‘You have to talk about and realize that people are really upset about illegal immigration?’ F— you. How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned?” Biden later added.

“How do you think you got food on your f—ing table?” he continued. “Who do you think washes your dishes? Who do you think does your f—ing garden? Who do you think is here? By the f—ing sheer f—ing just grit and will that they figured out a way to get here because they thought that they could give themselves and their family a better chance.”

JOHN KERRY ADMITS TRUMP WAS ‘RIGHT’ ON BORDER, SAYS HE TOLD BIDEN THAT DEMOCRATS MISSED ON IMMIGRATION

The White House pulled no punches after the interview from Biden, who was a major player behind the scenes during the Biden administration and faced a lot of scrutiny for his past overseas business dealings.

“A CBP agent was just shot in the face by two criminal illegal aliens that Joe Biden let into the country but Hunter is more concerned about who is going to clean up his hotel room after his benders,” Abigail Jackson, White House spokeswoman, told Fox News Digital.

“This sort of callous, self-interested maliciousness from the entire Biden Crime Family is exactly why Joe Biden left office with record-low approval ratings,” Jackson added.

The administration has sent those believed or known to be from designated foreign terrorist organizations, like MS-13, to the prison in El Salvador, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to ramp up immigration operations across the country, including in sanctuary cities. Meanwhile, many people in the country illegally have opted to self-deport, as the Department of Homeland Security is offering $1,000 and free travel out of the country for those without an additional criminal background.

OBAMA SEEMS TO SWIPE AT TRUMP IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN, SAYING MIGRANTS ‘TREATED AS ENEMIES’

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

Democrats have repeatedly gotten into hot water for mentioning the service and agricultural industries to counteract Trump’s stances on immigration.

Famously, Kelly Osbourne was slammed for saying, “If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilets? Donald Trump?” on “The View” in 2015, which she later apologized for.

“We have a shortage of workers in our country, and you see even in Florida, some of the farmers and the growers saying, ‘Why are you shipping these immigrants up North? We need them to pick the crops down here,'” Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in 2022 when she was speaker of the House. 

More recently, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, faced scrutiny for remarks at the South by Southwest Festival in March.

“How many of you are sending your kids to college?” Crockett said.  “How many of you are sending your kids to college to go and work on the farms?”

“Now, how many of you are looking to send your kids into hospitality after this college education so that they can go and make the beds at the hotels?” the Democrat asked. 

“How many of you are planning to send your kids to college – because that’s what we do, we send everybody to college – how many of you are planning to send your kids to college so that they can then go and build these houses?” Crockett continued. 

In the interview, the former president’s son also called both President Donald Trump and El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele a “dictator,” and referred to the Central American nation’s terrorism confinement center as a likely “death camp.”

WHISTLEBLOWER ACCUSES BIDEN ADMIN OF LEAVING THOUSANDS OF MIGRANT CHILD TRAFFICKING REPORTS UNINVESTIGATED

“What we’re going to do is we’re going to send masked men to this marginalized group and we are going to take them, put them on planes, put them on buses, put them on trains, and send them to a prison camp in a foreign country,” he said in an interview with the “Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan” YouTube channel. “What am I describing right then? Am I describing Germany? Am I describing the United States right now? Because I will tell you what, if you think that the prison in El Salvador is not a f—ing concentration camp, you’re out of your f—ing mind.”

Biden was granted a pardon by his father in December for any crimes he “has committed or may have committed” dating back to 2014. Biden said his son was “being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted” after he was convicted in two federal cases in 2024 for tax and firearm offenses.

“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction – mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” Hunter Biden said in a statement at the time.  

“Is it really a surprise that Hunter Biden has no respect for Americans who are upset about the criminal illegal aliens let into our country by Joe Biden? Under Biden’s reckless open-border policies, terrorists, gang members, murderers, and child pedophiles were released into American communities,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated in response to Biden’s podcast comments.

“These policies had real consequences. Young Americans, like Laken Riley and Jocelyn Nungaray, lost their lives because of illegal aliens who should have never been in this country. Just two days ago, two illegal aliens who entered our country and were released under President Biden shot and nearly killed one of our brave off-duty CBP officers. President Trump and Secretary Noem will never abandon these victims or their families. DHS will continue to deliver on the mandate of the American people to make America safe again,” she added.

South Africa’s youngest news consumers are disengaging from traditional journalism. Instead, they rely on digital platforms that prioritise speed, user choice and algorithmic influence, often at the expense of credibility and sustained attention.

According to the 2025 Reuters Institute Digital News Report, 33% of South Africans receive their news from TikTok, while 42% rely on YouTube. This reflects a broader continental trend, with 44% of Africans aged 18 to 24 identifying digital platforms as their primary source of news.

The result is a growing disconnect between young audiences and traditional media outlets. Many young people favour content that feels personal and direct, fuelling a global move toward personality-driven journalism. Influencers and independent creators often receive greater engagement than established news outlets. 

“The myth is that young people don’t consume media [and] news or read a lot. The reality is that they do, but have a different view of what, how and where they should find and consume it,” said Anton Harber, author and former professor at the University of the Witwatersrand and of the Mail & Guardian.

Young people consume considerable amounts of media, but their consumption patterns differ from older generations, Harber explained. Journalists are struggling to connect with them on the platforms and through the formats they prefer. 

“There is a disconnect between journalists and young audiences, largely being filled by influencers and chancers who often pretend to be doing journalism but have none of the verification processes, rules and ethics of journalism.”

Digital platforms have introduced speed and reach, breaking down the traditional gatekeepers of information. This has expanded access to news, but it has also blurred the lines between credible reporting and unverified content. 

“We are flooded by a rich mix of information and disinformation. We have less quality, in-depth, probing journalism and less capacity to know what is true or fake,” Harber said.

South Africa reflects the global anxiety over misinformation. In its 2025 report, the Reuters Institute notes that 73% of South Africans are concerned about their ability to discern real from fake information online. This is on par with the United States and Nigeria, but well above the global average of 58%.

In addition, the report shows that 55% of South Africans trust the news most of the time, placing the country fifth out of the 48 surveyed. This indicates that trust in news remains relatively strong, but it is steadily declining from the 61% recorded in 2022.

“There has been a deliberate campaign to undermine trust in traditional media for malicious and disruptive purposes, often by governments and organisations attempting to undermine democracy by flooding the zone with disinformation,” Harber said.

Mistrust has been amplified by social media algorithms that prioritise aggravating content. Rather than offering clarity, these platforms contribute to information fatigue and deepen public scepticism. “Social media has facilitated this by using algorithms that favour information that is disruptive, conflictual and anxiety-inducing.”

Despite Harber’s concerns about the structural risks of algorithmic media, the fast-paced and personalised nature of social media platforms continues to appeal to many young South Africans.

Farhana Essop, a law and politics student, said she receives most of her news on Instagram. She explained that she is interested in current affairs but finds traditional forms of news outdated and “unengaging”.

Essop also believes that some newsrooms contain biases, which become embedded into the news published for public consumption.

For her, social media is a reliable alternative because it can provide diverse perspectives and first-hand accounts of situations.

“There’s a lot of people who are dedicated to giving you both sides and showing you what’s actually happening,” she said.

Despite the risk of misinformation online, Essop believes the interactive nature of social media provides more context and clarity than traditional media.

For Sydney, a psychology student, the constant stream of information — however accessible — can be overwhelming. She believes that staying informed is important, but not at the expense of mental wellbeing.

“You need to be knowledgeable to some extent about what’s going on. There are real problems. We need to be aware of that. But when it gets to a point where it affects your mental health and it affects how you perceive certain things — or it clashes with your views — you can distance yourself from it,” she said.

Sydney believes that reporting on sensitive topics objectively can underplay the experiences of those affected. This can unintentionally distance readers from the story.

“A lot of [journalists] target very personal and intimate topics from an objective point of view, and some things can’t be looked at objectively. When you don’t regard the human aspect of [news], it becomes very impersonal.” 

Shiloh Marsh, a third-year media student, believes the way news is delivered plays a crucial role in how young people engage with it. 

Marsh receives news from multiple sources, including Eyewitness News, public broadcaster SABC as well as The Sun and The Citizen.

To reconnect with young people, Marsh thinks media houses should employ young reporters and news anchors. “It’s very much the same people that you saw from 20 years ago. We need new faces to interest us.”

Marsh says news should be kept easy to understand, and argues that some journalists ask interviewees over-complicated questions and write in jargon that makes news inaccessible for young people. 

“I think there’s a huge gap between how the news is told versus how young people interpret it,” she said.

The challenge lies in the media’s resistance to change, Harber contends. Newsrooms must move beyond rigid, formulaic practices and adopt storytelling formats that reflect how young audiences connect with information today. 

To rebuild trust and remain relevant, journalism must embrace approaches that prioritise transparency and conversation. 

“The research shows that young people want to see the faces of those bringing them information [to] identify with them and — most of all — they must be authentic. [Young people] want conversations, not lectures,” he added.

This day marks the 1789 storming of the Bastille prison, which triggered the French Revolution – a powerful symbol of freedom and the fight for equality that continues to resonate worldwide.

The Embassy of France hosted an elegant reception, complete with French wine, champagne, fresh oysters, an exquisite cheese spread, and delicate macarons. The evening perfectly captured the essence of French sophistication and culinary excellence.

France remains synonymous with fashion, with Paris universally regarded as the “Fashion Capital of the World.” As the birthplace of haute couture, it was fitting that guests were treated to a visual spectacle featuring spectacular shows from Fabrosanz and Renaissance Design, showcasing exceptional local talent alongside French aesthetic sensibilities.

The fashion industry represents one of France’s most significant and profitable sectors, contributing substantially to the country’s robust economy and global cultural influence.

In a significant announcement for travel enthusiasts, Ambassador David Martin of France revealed that “in four months, Air France will permanently open a direct flight from Paris to Johannesburg.” This development promises to strengthen ties between the two nations and facilitate easier travel for both business and leisure.

The French Consulate General in Johannesburg has processed more than 31,000 visas for South Africans eager to experience France over the past year, demonstrating the strong appetite for Franco-South African exchange.

Deputy Minister Bernice Swarts of Fisheries, Forestry and Environmental Affairs congratulated France on this auspicious occasion, reflecting the warm diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The celebration embodied a perfect blend of history, patriotism, and festive spirit, honoring both French heritage and the enduring friendship between France and South Africa.

Dear Ms Paula Slier, 

I have observed with a degree of bemusement your recent forays into the blogosphere of the Times of Israel. Having followed your international career, and even encountered your work on the local airwaves of Chai FM here in Johannesburg, I must confess to a certain level of disappointment at the spectacle that has unfolded. 

On 11 July 2025, you saw fit to amplify the extreme, dangerous and unsubstantiated assertions of one Justin Lewis. A mere two days later, you claim that this is “a lobbying and advocacy effort based on unverified allegations”. 

But, instead of apologising to your readers for violating the most basic tenets of ethical journalism and taking steps to mitigate the damage you have caused, you chose once again to amplify these reckless allegations, vowing to pursue them, notwithstanding the lack of evidence. 

For the record, to say that these claims are unverified and baseless is a perfectly rational response to someone, like Mr Lewis, who clearly has a penchant for misinformation and lies. 

What is not rational is to ignore a growing body of evidence and information from experts in search of nonexistent evidence that South Africa could not have possibly conceived on its own the interpretation of upholding international law by invoking the provisions of the genocide convention. 

Just by way of desktop research you would have found this LinkedIn Post , which also has similar sensational claims about the first minister of Scotland. The “information” you are referring to is an email to the an organisation referred to as the Media Research Council (MRC) in which, Mr Lewis commenced his missive with a litany of the following pronouncements: 

• “As a ‘non-lawyer (I am a farmer by profession, entrepreneur by trade, and consultant to African health development projects in East Africa).” 
• “Some years ago Lloyds London and I were victims of court sanctioned insurance fraud in SA courts. During which time I worked with Chief Justice Chaskalson to Mogoeng Mogoeng. And the Leveson Inquiry, given the use of phone hacking to corrupt courts, which made Prince Harry’s victory special.” 
• “I am a COE congregant who was privileged to consider the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu as a family friend, given our families long history with the Church.’” 

He then proceeded to tell the MRC: 

“Evidence exists confirming that the SA government, led at that time by its main political party the African National Congress (ANC) knew about Hamas’s sic) intended attack on the state of Israel before it happened in [sic] October 2023 and that elements within the SA government, the Department of Foreign Affairs (Dirco) (sic), actively encouraged and enjoined [sic] its support of Hamas political strategy by acting as its agent for access to the ICC and the ICJ, which access to the court (ICJ), Hamas did not have as a non-signatory, as alleged. 

“As part of a political strategy, preparations were made prior to the 7 October atrocity against Israel, to put in place mechanisms to approach the ICC and ICJ for protection from the state of Israel’s anticipated response. As a layman the example I use is that of assisting a neighbour to burn his house down, then rushing to court to claim insurance protection from your insurer (as your neighbour is a non-signatory).” 

One might reasonably be surprised that a mere email from a third party, clearly well-versed in the art of name-dropping luminaries — some, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, no longer with us, alongside the rather incongruous mention of British royalty and former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng — could trigger a media inquiry. 

My own rudimentary desktop research swiftly illuminated the gaping holes in Mr Lewis’ narrative and credibility: 

• The Leveson Inquiry was an event of seismic proportions, meticulously documented and still debated in the UK. Yet, Mr Lewis’ supposed involvement remains conspicuously absent from any credible record. 
• Mr Lewis styles himself a “non-lawyer” yet claims to have “worked with two chief justices” of our Republic. In what capacity? South African judges, by the very nature of our judicial system, do not conduct investigations, let alone work with members of the public directly on legal matters. 
• His reference to a Lloyds of London case in our courts, supposedly “precedent-setting”, eludes all recollection, despite its globally recognised status. Furthermore, “court sanctioned insurance fraud” is oxymoronic: one cannot be the victim of a “court sanctioned” crime, if the court dismissed the claim it determined it was not a crime. 
• In 2014: “Lewis says Casisa is a private sector human rights lobby made up of victims of fraud committed upon the court. It has not yet been registered as a human rights organisation in the European Union.” But he made submissions to parliament claiming to be an NGO. In 2017: he stated, “My name is Justin Lewis and I am a human rights lobbyist for a NGO in the process of being registered whose purpose is the defence of SA national institutions from corruption.” 

My response to the Independent Online was that it was regrettable they (Independent Online) would lend credence to such unsubstantiated, baseless and reckless claims from an unknown and unverified individual. 

The case of the unverified claims 

Your July 11 blog entry in the Times of Israel regrettably mirrored this precise misstep, granting oxygen to demonstrably unverified assertions. You further compounded the error by endorsing Mr Lewis’s contention that the South African media had, in some grand conspiracy, ignored his “information”. In doing so, you effectively impugned the integrity of our media as a whole, suggesting it functions as a purveyor of misinformation or propaganda. 

The consequence was the discrediting of the South African media by both yourself and Mr Lewis. Mercifully, as you concede, “industry colleagues” swiftly disabused you of the notion that you were pioneering in platforming an individual with a demonstrated propensity for manufacturing fictional narratives, a propensity, I might add, easily discernible with the most elementary of desktop searches. As you presumably easily discovered, hence your “clarification” a mere two days after publication. 

One might ask whether you undertook an elementary search of Mr Lewis before publishing your 11 July blog that relied entirely on his unsubstantiated claims. There is simply no good answer to that question for you, as a journalist, is no doubt ostensibly committed to “verified facts, credible sources, and balanced reporting”. 

A ‘clarification’ that only deepened the mire 

Upon realising the substantial credibility deficit of your source, you penned a damage-control “clarification” on the very same Times of Israel blog. Here, you concede that your source and previous claims were, to be precise, baseless and unverified. One might have commended this acknowledgment of error, had it been accompanied 

by a modicum of self-reflection and contrition a recognition, perhaps, that a few swift Google searches might have spared you considerable embarrassment. 

Yet, astonishingly, you insist on the existence of “global concerns” about “South Africa’s diplomatic posture toward Hamas and Iran”. “Global concerns”? How many of the 193 United Nations member states have articulated such concern? I pause here to underscore that those who critique South Africa’s bilateral relations with Iran seldom acknowledge that these relations, much like those with the State of Israel, predate our democratic government. It is, perhaps, convenient for some to portray these ties as a post-1994 phenomenon. 

I do, however, commend the discerning readers who promptly alerted you, Ms Slier, to the dubious nature of your July 11 blog post. Strangely, you appear to believe that the “positive responses” you received somehow negate this. This raises a crucial question: why would one celebrate positive responses to unverified reporting? 

Again, in your July 13 entry, you seem to admit that, upon some semblance of verification on your part, the claims in your initial blog post cannot be substantiated. For instance, there is no application before any court that contains Mr Lewis’ spectacular fables. Nonetheless, you doggedly insist this is an “important lobby mechanism” and therefore you stand by your story. Essentially, we are to believe Mr Lewis simply because he said so, even in the face of unverified claims. 

The public deserves better 

It is fair to say that no serious person, let alone a journalist worth their salt, would publicly champion such a flimsy argument. The world, the readers of the Times of Israel and the listeners of Chai FM are profoundly ill-served by your work, Ms Slier. 

There are, in fact, credible voices who have cited South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice as providing compelling evidence of genocide in Gaza (including the court itself, on three separate occasions).

One such voice is Israeli Dr Bartov, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, in the venerable New York Times. He wrote: 

“It appeared no longer possible to deny that the pattern of [Israel Defense Force] operations was consistent with the statements denoting genocidal intent made by Israeli leaders in the days after the Hamas attack,” including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat to turn Gaza into “rubble” and his call for Israeli citizens to remember “what Amalek did to you” — a reference to the biblical passage calling on the Israelites to “kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings” in their fight against an ancient enemy. The continued denial of this designation by states, international organisations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again.” 

South Africa’s case has nothing to do with politics, nor with religion or ethnicity. It is about the conduct of a state that has signed the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention and numerous international instruments and manifestly and repeatedly violated them. It is about the equal application of international law. Our support for the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people is predicated on the enduring need to address the manifestation of an illegal settler colonial occupation. 

These instruments did not exist when the Herero people in Namibia were almost exterminated, or during the horrific period of the Holocaust. They existed in 1994 in Rwanda and Srebrenica, yet too few states pulled the levers put in place to stop them. 

Surely, we have learned from the lessons of the past and have vowed “never again” to allow such atrocities to repeat. Surely, we cannot sit by and allow the logic that justified apartheid and previous tragedies to repeat themselves. South Africa has consistently called for an immediate ceasefire and a just peace, as well as for the return of all hostages held in captivity in Gaza and political prisoners — including children — who are incarcerated in Israeli prisons for advocating for the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. 

This is what we must all be lobbying for: for the occupation to end and for the status quo to change for the better for the people of Israel and Palestine, not for unsubstantiated conspiracies propelled by name-droppers. 

By the way, in his email to the MRC, Mr Lewis inserts in “his draft application” the following proviso: “Subject to confirmation by our investigation whether SA President Ramaphosa knew about the alleged collaboration with an organisation the US, UK and the EU, a proclaimed terrorist organisation, or not.” 

Yes, you have read correctly: this from the very same person who declared there was “evidence”.

The world, the readers of the Times of Israel, and the listeners of Chai FM deserve better, Ms. Slier. We cannot accept clickbait, biased reporting that confirms unsubstantiated hogwash. 

As we mark Mandela month across the world, it may be prudent to remember what he said: “But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

Indeed we cannot be free without the resolution of conflicts, including in Sudan and other parts of the world. 

Yours in verification and truth telling, 

Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for the ministry of international relations and cooperation.

South Africa’s G20 finance track has reiterated calls for reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with a special focus on revising quotas that determine countries’ contribution, access to finance and voting rights.

During the third meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors last week, the finance track supported the restructuring of the international financial architecture with enhanced country risk evaluation.

“We reaffirm our commitment to a strong, quota-based, and adequately resourced IMF at the centre of the global financial safety net. We have advanced the domestic approvals for our consent to the quota increase under the 16th general review of quotas, and we look forward to finalising this process with no further delay,” a communique at the end of the meeting stated.

“We acknowledge the importance of realignment in quota shares to better reflect members’ relative positions in the world economy while protecting the quota shares of the poorest members. We acknowledge, however, that building consensus among members on quota and governance reforms will require progress in stages.”

Last week’s meeting was part of a series of forums held under South Africa’s year-long G20 presidency and ahead of the main summit of G20 leaders in Johannesburg in November.

The finance track delegates backed a declaration agreed in April, for the development of a set of principles guiding future discussions on IMF quotas and governance, to be concluded by the next IMF spring meeting in 2026.

According to the G20 finance track, IMF reforms are meant to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness — essential for generating “strong economic growth and creating more and better jobs”.

Critics have spoken of “excessive imbalances” in IMF representation, calling for reforms that could lead to country-specific reforms and multilateral coordination “in a way that contributes to an open global economy and without compromising sustainable global growth”.

Think Tank 20, a G20 working group composed of international think tanks, recently made similar recommendations for the overhaul of IMF governance and financing models, ensuring that “no individual country should have veto power” and increased transparency in the methodologies of credit rating agencies.

In June, Youth 20 (Y20) working groups issued their own statement emphasising the importance of multilateral cooperation, national sovereignty and enhancing the participation and inclusion of young people in tackling the problems facing the world.

While acknowledging the importance of the IMF in global financing, the finance track conceded that building consensus among members on quota and governance reforms will take time because Global South countries negotiate their demands against Global North priorities.

The track outlined the factors affecting global economic growth, financial and price stability — heightened uncertainty and “complex challenges” including wars, geopolitical and trade tensions, disruptions to global supply chains, high debt levels and frequent extreme weather events and natural disasters.

“In light of high public debt and fiscal pressures, we recognise the need to raise long-term growth potential by pursuing growth-oriented macroeconomic policies, while building fiscal buffers, ensuring fiscal sustainability, encouraging public and private investments and undertaking productivity-enhancing reforms,” the communique said.

It also recommended central bank independence and revitalising the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The G20 central bank governors committed to ensuring price stability, data-driven policy adjustment and policy consistency with their respective mandates. 

“We will continue to pursue efforts that advance prosperity and recognise the importance of the World Trade Organisation to advance trade issues, and acknowledge the agreed-upon rules in the WTO as an integral part of the global trading system,” the communique said.

“We recognise the WTO has challenges and needs meaningful, necessary, and comprehensive reform to improve all its functions, through innovative approaches, to be more relevant and responsive in light of today’s realities.”

The finance ministers and governors urged the international community to support vulnerable countries whose debt is sustainable but which face liquidity problems, and encouraged IMF and the World Bank to work on feasible options to support these nations.

The finance track also underscored the importance of “sustainable finance” by ensuring “robust, resilient and effective coordination” between multilateral development banks, climate funds and others in support of national priorities. 

“Scaling up co-financing and mobilising private sector resources by improving efficiency and promoting the use of innovative financial instruments is essential for developing countries’ risk-sharing in country-led climate investments,” said the communique. 

The ministers and governors reaffirmed their commitment to addressing vulnerabilities and promoting an open, resilient and stable financial system, which supports economic growth, and is “based on the consistent, full and timely implementation of all agreed upon reforms and international standards, including Basel III”.

Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures developed by the Basel committee on banking supervision in response to the financial crisis of 2007-09, aimed at strengthening the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks.

The finance track backed the G20 roadmap for enhancing cross-border payments; regional financial action task forces to combat money laundering; and implementation of partnerships on financing micro, small and medium enterprises.

The finance ministers and central bank governors highlighted the importance of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and called for more support for the pandemic and global health funds to strengthen medical infrastructure. 

“We emphasise the importance of effective and efficient health spending and domestic resource mobilisation, given the current reduction in donor assistance, as well as the need for better coordination and alignment of external and domestic funding flows,” the communique stated.

The finance ministers and central bank governors’ will meet in October in Washington DC in preparation for the November summit and handover of the G20 presidency from South Africa to the United States.

After the United States Agency for International Development (USAid) abruptly terminated billions of dollars’ worth of overseas aid grants, the health system in central Mozambique was left in tatters. Earlier this year, I travelled to two badly hit provinces of the country to describe the toll.

In one article, I reported how thousands of orphaned and vulnerable children in Sofala province had been abandoned by their USAid-funded case workers. Many of these children are HIV-positive and had relied on case workers to bring them their medicines or accompany them to hospitals. Without them, some children stopped taking their treatment and died.

In a second piece, I reported how USAid had cut funding for contractors transporting medicines and diagnostic tests to health facilities in Manica province. This led to shortages of HIV drugs at hospitals in the area, which also led to the deaths of children.

In the midst of all this chaos, I was often curious to know from people on the ground who they held accountable for this situation and who they believed needed to solve the problem. My assumption was that they would call for the Mozambican government to help them out.

I was surprised to find that in the affected villages I visited, this was far from anyone’s expectation. For most, it was simply unthinkable that their government could do anything to save them.

“You mentioned the government,” one community leader said after I asked whether the state should intervene. “But even these chairs we’re sitting on are stamped with USAid logos. So what help can we expect from the government?”

The more I learned about governance in Mozambique, the more understandable this attitude became. Throughout the country, core government functions have been outsourced to a combination of foreign governments, aid agencies, interstate bodies and private companies.

For instance, many of the country’s essential medicines are procured by a large international financing body, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Until January, the transportation of these medicines to hospitals was overwhelmingly financed by US aid agencies, as were the pay cheques of many health workers.

Outside of the healthcare sector, the story is similar.

The main highway I travelled on was built and paid for by Chinese corporations and banks. To keep hydrated I relied on bottled water supplied by private companies because the taps either didn’t run or produced contaminated water.

In many of the impoverished rural settlements, there was virtually no state infrastructure, and people received no financial support from the government. Instead, they primarily depended on aid organisations.

The country’s national budget has historically been heavily supplemented by foreign bodies, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Union, though much of this support was suspended in 2016-17.

Even national defence has been partially outsourced.

When Islamist militants began rampaging through the northern province of Cabo Delgado, the government struggled to contain it and contracted Russian and South African mercenary groups. When that failed, they authorised a military intervention by the Southern African Development Community and invited a parallel mission by the Rwanda Defence Forces.

It is thus no surprise that Mozambicans have virtually no expectation that their government will come to the rescue when facing an emergency. Instead, they look outward. As one community leader in a rural village told me, “Here, we depend on Trump.”

Cash-strapped and corrupt

Mozambique has 35 million people. About 2.5 million live with HIV, the second highest HIV-positive population in the world after South Africa. Life expectancy is well under 60. 

Eight in 10 people live on less than three dollars a day.

The government is deeply cash-strapped. The South African government spends 10 times more per citizen than the Mozambican government does. A large chunk of its spending goes towards paying off debt.

Mozambique simply doesn’t have the money to build an effective health system, though had it spent its limited budget reserves more effectively over the years it could have developed a health system that was at least a bit more independent of donor support.

Instead, the country’s budgetary resources have often been wasted on corruption. Mozambique ranks 146th out of 180 in the world on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. This has directly played a role in its public health woes.

One clear example of this is the Tuna Bonds scandal, in which state-owned companies took out $2 billion of loans, backed by secret state guarantees. This was supposedly to finance large fishing and maritime security projects. In reality, much of the money was siphoned off to enrich political elites, including the then-finance minister, who is now in prison.

As a result of those decisions, the country was swallowed by debt. And when the extent of the corruption was publicised in 2016, the IMF pulled its financial support for Mozambique.

A detailed 2021 report found this directly led to a fall in economic growth and government spending. It states: “Comparing the three-year average of 2016-18 to the three previous years, spending on health and education fell by $1.7 billion — entirely due to the debt.”

The country’s governance crisis is further demonstrated by the political unrest that engulfed the country after the October elections last year, triggered by accusations of election fraud. The accusations were probably overblown, but international observers said the election was not free and fair.

Even during the brief one-week period I spent in central Mozambique, signs of corruption and mismanagement filtered into my interactions with officials.

For instance, before I embarked on a multi-day tour of one province, government officials told me that someone from the provincial health department would need to accompany me on my trip. This was apparently to make formal introductions to district-level officials that I hadn’t asked to meet. For this apparently vital service, the man would need to be paid a per diem of roughly R500 a day for two days, they said.

The civil servant in question was a very senior person in the provincial health department. Despite facing a collapsing health system in the wake of the US cuts, he was apparently ready to drop everything he had going for the rest of that week to follow me around.

When I explained that I wouldn’t pay a government official to stalk me, I was told that saying no wasn’t an option. This is unfortunately the way things are done around these parts, said a local who helped arrange the tour. Neither GroundUp, Spotlight nor I paid the bribe.

US responsibility

Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that defenders of the current US government have often resorted to arguments about moral responsibility when justifying the decision to abruptly slash aid. It is reasonable to ask why the American taxpayer should bear any of the brunt of Mozambique’s public health system when so many of its problems have been caused by the Mozambican government itself.

But it’s not so simple.

The Mozambican civil war from 1977 to 1992 destroyed the country. The anti-communist Renamo insurgency probably received millions of dollars of support from US evangelists, despite committing numerous atrocities. It is strongly suspected that the US government also materially supported Renamo. So the US’s involvement in Mozambique has not been innocent. It could be argued that its aid spending was the least the US could do to make amends for its role in the war.

Moreover, Mozambique didn’t develop its high level of dependency in isolation. For more than two decades, the US actively took responsibility for core functions of the country’s health system. Until January, the US government continued to sign numerous contracts with local organisations, pledging millions of dollars to help run life-saving health programmes for years into the future.

The health system was consequently built around these commitments.

If the US was going to take that much responsibility for the wellbeing of some of the world’s most vulnerable people, then it had a duty to at least provide notice before pulling the plug. Instead, it chose to slash the funds instantly, and in a manner that needlessly maximised damage and confusion.

Stop-work orders were issued overnight, which required that people who were doing life-saving work down their tools immediately. Organisations decided to adhere to these instructions rigidly in the hope that their funding would be reinstated. At that point the Trump administration said it was only pausing aid funding pending a review, and no one wanted to give the reviewers a reason to terminate their programmes.

The consequence was complete chaos.

Orphaned children in extremely rural parts of Mozambique waited for their case workers to bring them their medicines, but often they simply never came. Many of these children had no idea why they had been abandoned.

When certain case workers decided to defy the stop-work order and continue their work voluntarily, they had to do so in secret.

To add fuel to the fire, the Trump administration routinely provided contradictory information to its former recipients and to the public.

The initial executive order signed in January said all foreign development assistance would be suspended for 90 days, pending a review, and might be restored after this time.

Then US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a waiver stating that the suspension wouldn’t apply to life-saving humanitarian services. He told the public that organisations providing these life-saving services could instantly resume their work under this order.

Yet the organisations themselves received different instructions from their USAid officers. Rather than immediately continuing their work, they were told to submit revised budgets that only covered life-saving services and to wait for approval.

Organisations rushed to submit these budgets by the deadline. But in the end, the green light never came and their funds remained frozen. This was not only the case in Mozambique; researchers estimated that virtually no funds were released under Rubio’s waiver globally.

In the meantime, Rubio stated that organisations that hadn’t resumed life-saving activities were clearly unable to understand instructions or were simply trying to make a political point.

Later on, the organisations received explicit termination notices, ending their programmes.

Despite this, US embassies and several large media outlets continued to reference Rubio’s order as if it was actually implemented en masse. Even as I write this, the on-again, off-again US aid story is unfinished.

This mixed messaging created an enormous amount of confusion for staff of these organisations and the recipients of their work, ultimately for no clear benefit to the American people.

There was simply never any reason to act this callously toward health organisations to whom USAid had pledged its support. In contrast to the rampant corruption that has plagued the Mozambican government, these organisations were heavily audited to continue receiving funding.

The work they were doing was clearly making a material difference to some of the poorest people on Earth. In the far-flung settlements that I visited, villagers told me about how their lives had been transformed by these organisations. Many were only put on life-saving HIV treatment because of them.

Whatever arguments one may want to advance about the importance of self-sufficiency and national responsibility, none of this justifies the US government administering the aid cuts in such a callous and confusing manner.

This story was originally published by GroundUp

Audi expanded its popular Q3 range in September 2024 to include diesel variants that have two-litre turbocharged diesel engines and some mild upgrades. 

The German manufacturer also revealed the new generation Q3 in June, which will go on sale in Europe later this year and in South Africa in 2026. 

The Mail & Guardian had the outgoing Audi Q3 35TDI Sportback Black Edition on test for a week and it was the perfect appetiser to get us ready for the new Q3. 

The Q3 Black Edition is an attractive car from the outside. We had it in pulse orange, which might not work on other vehicles but really allows the external features of the Q3 to burst into life. 

The black exterior mirror housing and blacked out badges also make the vehicle pop a little bit more than the regular TDI and TFSI variants. 

The drive

It’s difficult to fight German engineering when it comes to drivetrains. 

The Audi Q3 35TDI variants are no different. The two litre turbocharged engine is tied to Audi’s seven-speed S tronic dual-clutch transmission and pushes out 110kW of power and 340Nm of torque. 

The Q3 features a MacPherson strut front suspension and a four-link rear axle with separate spring and damper arrangement. Audi drive select also allows the driver to adjust the suspension for different driving modes. 

The engine, gearbox and the suspension make the drive capable and comfortable. It also feels extremely smooth and the high torque figure makes overtaking very easy. 

Travelling along various highways in Gauteng, and as comfortable as I was driving this vehicle, it was also a lot of fun to drive. 

Because of the compact nature of the Q3, the bendy highways were a breeze and allowed me to express myself. 

Audi claims a fuel figure of 4.9 litres/100km. I managed 5.5 litres/100km, but also had to endure some terrible traffic on the N1 which didn’t help that figure at all.

I was really impressed. 

I was even more impressed when I saw that the new Q3 will feature an improved suspension and a diesel plug-in hybrid that will provide 119km full electric driving range. 

The new Q3 will also be available in an all-wheel-drive variant. 

Interior and safety

The interior had the sporty feel that you would expect from the Audi Q3 Black Edition, but there were certain aspects that I felt needed work. 

For starters, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto were only available on a wired connection, so I had to make sure that I dragged my USB into the vehicle at all times. 

The only other complaint I had is the vehicle lacked atmosphere on the inside. For such a sporty and compact looking vehicle, the interior felt plain. 

But I will give Audi props for keeping buttons below the infotainment system and making it simple for the driver. 

The sport steering wheel and sport seats make the interior extremely comfortable as well. 

After seeing the interior of the new Q3 that is coming next year, I have no worries that Audi has intentions to make that interior more exciting and with nicer dash and door materials, even more drivercentric and more technologically advanced. 

The old gear shift will also be updated to make the cabin more pleasing to the eye.

In terms of safety, the Audi Q3 has an array of features such as a rear-view camera, parking aid plus and six airbags. 

Verdict and looking forward

The outgoing Q3 was really about a seamless driving experience that also included fun dynamics, but I felt the interior of the vehicle did not keep up with the vibrant exterior. 

The incoming Q3 looks like it does a much better job at matching the interior and exterior and is likely to be an exciting prospect for South Africans.

The current Audi Q3 is priced from R740 100 and the 35TDI Sportback Black Edition that was tested comes in at R934 050.

The fourth industrial revolution (4IR) has become a byword for transformation. As entire industries and social norms shift beneath our feet because of artificial intelligence (AI), so too does the very concept of employment. 

Less than a decade ago, employment structures were largely rigid, characterised by fixed hours, physical workplaces, and clearly defined responsibilities. The Covid-19 pandemic catalysed a dramatic break from this paradigm. In 2020, the world was forced into a remote-first mode, revealing the limitations of traditional employment models. This transformation, as Oluwaseun Kolade and Adebowale Owoseni term it, has ushered in “Employment 5.0”, an evolving reality that continues to redefine how, where, and by whom work is done.

To grapple with the legal implications of this shift, we must first understand how the scope of employment — that is, the range of activities an employee is expected to perform — has evolved. Remote work, hybrid arrangements, platform-based jobs and the gig economy are no longer anomalies; they are becoming the norm. Flexibility and autonomy, once considered perks, are now central pillars of modern work culture.

As Soumya Vadavi and Chandrasekaran Sharmiladevi explain, “The structure of an economy is dynamic … changes in the structure of jobs are the net result of changes in demand and productivity.” The evolution of the economy from agrarian to industrial to service-based sectors has blurred the once-clear boundaries between professional and personal life. This, in turn, has complicated the legal determination of when an employee is acting within the course and scope of their employment, which is critical in assigning employer liability.

For example, remote work has rendered the concept of a fixed workplace nearly obsolete. Work now occurs in homes, co-working spaces or even across countries, raising questions about jurisdiction, supervision and employer responsibility. Gig and platform-based work presents further complexities. Determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor often hinges on vague factors such as control, economic dependence or integration into the business. The rise of AI and automation compounds this further, redefining job descriptions and introducing new tasks that may fall outside traditional employee duties. Additionally, the use of personal devices and remote networks introduces heightened concerns around data security and privacy issues that conventional employment law is not fully equipped to handle.

These changes have legal implications, particularly concerning the “course and scope” of employment, which is a central doctrine to determining employer liability for acts committed by employees. Historically, courts have interpreted this concept through the lens of employer control and the direct furtherance of the employer’s business. If employees were deemed to be acting within the scope of their duties, the employer could be held vicariously liable for their actions. But when an employee was engaged in what courts have termed a “frolic of their own” or personal pursuits unrelated to their job, the employer would not bear responsibility. An important consideration is that the abandonment-mismanagement rule holds that an employer may still be vicariously liable if an employee, while participating in a personal frolic, partially performs their work duties, thus effectively committing a simultaneous act and omission.

These distinctions, already intricate, are increasingly difficult to apply in the modern world. There are a number of essential questions to be considered. For example, how should courts assess the scope of employment when work is asynchronous, occurring across time zones and digital platforms? What happens when employees alternate between professional and personal tasks at the same time while working from home? How should algorithmic supervision and AI tools factor into evaluations of employer control?

These questions underscore the need for a more dynamic and context-sensitive framework for interpreting the scope of employment — one that reflects the fluidity of modern work rather than clinging to the static definitions of the past.

Equally urgent is the question of who qualifies as an employee. Traditional labour laws were designed with clear, stable employment relationships in mind. But in the gig economy, where many workers straddle the line between contractor and employee, these laws often fall short. If left unaddressed, this legal ambiguity could allow employers to shirk responsibilities around fair compensation, social protection, and worker benefits, undermining the principles of fairness and dignity that labour law seeks to uphold.

Balancing flexibility — a key value for many modern workers — with the employer’s need for accountability, productivity, and oversight is no small feat. It requires a recalibration of the legal system. As Mpedi aptly observes: “Historically, the law has been a largely reactive tool. But, in the age of AI, it cannot remain so.” The legal system must become anticipatory, not merely responsive. It must evolve in tandem with the digital transformation it seeks to regulate.

This means revisiting — and in many cases, redefining — fundamental legal concepts such as “employee”, “employer”, “work”, “workplace” and “scope of employment”. Policymakers must also ensure that the rights and protections afforded to traditional employees extend to gig and platform workers, who increasingly constitute a significant portion of the labour force.

Just as nature adapts to survive, so must the law. As we conclude in our book on AI and the Law: “A meaningful subject in our conversations is the necessity for a flexible legal framework capable of adjusting to the rapid progress of AI advancement. Conventional legal ideas and laws created for a world centred on humans frequently prove inadequate when applied to AI.”

If we are to meet the challenges — and seize the opportunities — of the fourth industrial revolution, we must embrace a Darwinian mindset: adapt or risk obsolescence. The future of employment is already here. The law must now catch up.

Letlhokwa George Mpedi is the vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Johannesburg. Tshilidzi Marwala is the rector of the United Nations University and UN under-secretary-general. The authors’ latest book on this subject is Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).