Watching the news last night, Malema and his attorney were trying to show that he is not a registered director of any of the 4 companies raping the tender coffers. What I do not understand, unless there was censorship, is why no journalist asked or stated a very obvious question. Not being a director does not mean you are not a shareholder, so who cares. Unless the company is structured so that he held no shares and only receives director fees. Of course such a situation would indicate his knowledge that what he was doing was wrong and hence not wanting to own shares, and being as transparent as a Bullet Proof vest. Alternatively, if he really did instruct his attorney to remove his name form the directorship, on becoming ANCYL main man, then that also shows that he feels the connection is incorrect, of course this being offset by the issue of shareholding.
And if his attorney really did forget, why on earth is he still using him? That seems to show some collaberation, further enhanced by the claim that the application to remove Malema from director position was submitted online, which the athorities have said is not possible.
If, by some insane reason there are people who really believe that Malema did want to be removed as director and also that he had no shares and therefore benefits, on taking up the ANCYL position, thus showing very good ethics and transparency - then we return to the original question, where did you get the money for the houses and the cars, and of course the R250 000 breitling?
PS - Where do you buy a Breitling for R250 000???