


Ross Thomson MSP letter to Kevin Stewart MSP on Brexit (06.02.2017)







There are many budget posts in a National Budget, but as there are talk of lacking international support of the budget in the Republic of Uganda. The certainty is that even as the donors are fleeing the National Resistance Movement (NRM) and the President Museveni own way of saying he doesn’t need them. Still, I want to show the world collectively what the NRM government have donor sponsored projects through the National Budget, these are projects and development of infrastructure that the NRM needs to show something after over 30 years reign.
Like take Japan the donor funding to the Northern Uganda Farmer Livelihood Improvement Project in the next Financial Year gives to the project Ush. 31.33bn. also donate funds to is the Nakawa TVET Lead Project got Ush. 4.69bn. Japan also donates to Kampala Flyover Construction and Road Upgrading Project with Ush. 155.44bn.
World Bank itself is donating funds in different ways to two other projects, which is African Centeres of Excellence that got Ush. 13.36bn. and Albertine Region Sustainable Development got Ush. 9.35bn. On the other hand the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated to the Construction of 5 Regional Technical Institutes with funds of Ush. 6.98bn.
Belgium has also offered their donor funds into the Ugandan state through various projects, like the Program/Project Support to Improve the Quality of Teaching and Learning with Ush. 11.97bn. also the Rehabilitation of the National Teacher Training Centre Kaliro allocated Ush. 15.16bn, they also gave to Rehabilitation of the National Teacher Training Centre Muni funds of Ush. 15.16bn. another project that Belgium was behind is the Support to the Implementation of Skilling Uganda with Ush. 15.96bn.
The Democratic People’s Republic of China has donated to new development projects in Uganda, like they are donating to Industrial Substations Ush. 91.74bn. they also donated to Isimba Hydro Power Plant Ush. 407bn. and also Karuma Hydro Power Plant where they have pledged Ush. 1,305.07bn. or Ush. 1.3 trillion to that alone! The Chinese is also involved in Entebbe Airport Rehabilitation where they have funded Ush. 148.13bn. the pledged funds for Standard Gauge Railway will first come next Financial Year 2018/2019 and not this financial year.
African Union (AU) funds to the UPDF Peace Keeping Mission in Somalia with total Ush. 256.66bn. United Kingdom pledged funds to the Road Infrastructure for Delivery of First Oil with Ush. 252.63bn.
The pledged funds for Kampala-Jinja Highway are first for FY 2018/2019, but no official donor or loaner of funds. Therefore the estimated funds come from thin air. What is also relevant is to see that the Funds from Austria and Denmark has been suspended for different development projects. Still, which I haven’t mentioned is the funds from African Development Bank, also GAVI and Global Funds still gives to health care development, even with the knowledge of the rampant corrupt behaviour in the Ministry of Health.
Therefore if the NRM are contemplating that they are themselves giving these sorts of projects to the people, I hope the donors are putting up boards or signs in the entrance or hallways, even start of the roads where it says what sort of amount of funds they spent on it. So that President Museveni or any other crony can take all the credit, because the credit and the footing the bill to somebody else! Peace.


The Tories or the Conservative Party, the ruling party in the United Kingdom after the European Union referendum election in 2016, has finally delivered a White Paper on their guesses and wishes for a leaving of the union for the Kingdom of United Kingdom. The UK Government are now furnishing their ideas and their wanted discussions with the partners on the continent. The EU might take this differently than the rest, but surely the 12 Point plan of the White Paper gives indications to what the Tories want to achieve in negotiations. That is something that has been in the winds for months after the sudden victory of the Brexit election.
First Point – Providing certainty and clarity:
“To provide legal certainty over our exit from the EU, we will introduce the Great Repeal Bill to remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book and convert the ‘acquis’ – the body of existing EU law – into domestic law. This means that, wherever practical and appropriate, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after we leave the EU as they did before” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).
Second Point – Taking control of our own laws:
“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that. The extent of EU activity relevant to the UK can be demonstrated by the fact that 1,056 EU-related documents were deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in 2016. These include proposals for EU Directives, Regulations, Decisions and Recommendations, as well as Commission delegated acts, and other documents such as Commission Communications, Reports and Opinions submitted to the Council, Court of Auditors Reports and more” (HM Government, P: 13 ,2017).
Third Point – Strengthening the Union:
“We have ensured since the referendum that the devolved administrations are fully engaged in our preparations to leave the EU and we are working with the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver an outcome that works for the whole of the UK. In seeking such a deal we will look to secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as those of all parts of England. A good deal will be one that works for all parts of the UK” (…) “As the UK leaves the EU, the unique relationships that the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and the Overseas Territories have with the EU will also change. Gibraltar will have particular interests, given that the EU Treaties apply to a large extent in Gibraltar, with some exceptions (for example, Gibraltar is not part of the Customs Union)” (HM Government, P: 17-20, 2017).
Fourth Point – Protecting our strong and historic ties with Ireland and maintaining the Common Travel Area:
“The relationship between the two countries has never been better or more settled than today, thanks to the strong political commitment from both Governments to deepen and broaden our modern partnership. Two recent State Visits, by Her Majesty The Queen in May 2011 and by President Higgins in April 2014, have helped cement this partnership; no one wants to see a return to the borders of the past. The Prime Minister is committed to maintaining the closest of ties and has already met the Taoiseach several times since taking office, most recently in Dublin in January 2017” (…) “We recognise that for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, the ability to move freely across the border is an essential part of daily life. When the UK leaves the EU we aim to have as seamless and frictionless a border as possible between Northern Ireland and Ireland, so that we can continue to see the trade and everyday movements we have seen up to now” (…) “We will work with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to find a practical solution that recognises the unique economic, social and political context of the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. An explicit objective of the UK Government’s work on EU exit is to ensure that full account is taken for the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. We will seek to safeguard business interests in the exit negotiations. We will maintain close operational collaboration between UK and Irish law enforcement and security agencies and their judicial counterparts” (HM Government, P: 21-23, 2017).

Fifth Point – Controlling immigration:
“We are considering very carefully the options that are open to us to gain control of the numbers of people coming to the UK from the EU. As part of that, it is important that we understand the impacts on the different sectors of the economy and the labour market. We will, therefore, ensure that businesses and communities have the opportunity to contribute their views. Equally, we will need to understand the potential impacts of any proposed changes in all the parts of the UK. So we will build a comprehensive picture of the needs and interests of all parts of the UK and look to develop a system that works for all” (…) “Implementing any new immigration arrangements for EU nationals and the support they receive will be complex and Parliament will have an important role in considering these matters further. There may be a phased process of implementation to prepare for the new arrangements. This would give businesses and individuals enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements” (HM Government, P: 27 , 2017).
Sixth Point – Securing rights for EU nationals in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU:
“Securing the status of, and providing certainty to, EU nationals already in the UK and to UK nationals in the EU is one of this Government’s early priorities for the forthcoming negotiations. To this end, we have engaged a range of stakeholders, including expatriate groups, to ensure we understand the priorities of UK nationals living in EU countries” (HM Government, P: 30, 2017).
Seventh Point – Protecting workers’ rights:
“As we convert the body of EU law into our domestic legislation, we will ensure the continued protection of workers’ rights. This will give certainty and continuity to employees and employers alike, creating stability in which the UK can grow and thrive” (HM Government P: 31, 2017).
Eight Point – Ensuring free trade with European markets:
“Close trading relationships with the EU exist across a range of sectors. The UK is a major export market for important sectors of the EU economy, including in manufactured and other goods, such as automotives, energy, food and drink, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and agriculture. These sectors employ millions of people around Europe” (…) “Producers in other EU Member States also rely on UK firms in their supply chains and vice versa. The integration of supply chains, which also benefits the UK, means that the UK often contributes a significant share of the foreign content in the EU countries’ exports” (…) “The EU is a party to negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) with more than twenty other countries. The UK continues to be committed to an ambitious TiSA and will play a positive role throughout the negotiations” (…) “As we leave the EU, the Government is committed to making the UK the best place in the world to do business. This will mean fostering a high quality, stable and predictable regulatory environment, whilst also actively taking opportunities to reduce the cost of unnecessary regulation and to support innovative business models” (…) “After we have left the EU, we want to ensure that we can take advantage of the opportunity to negotiate our own preferential trade agreements around the world. We will not be bound by the EU’s Common External Tariff or participate in the Common Commercial Policy” (HM Government, P 37:-38, 42, 45-46, 2017).
Ninth Point – Securing new trade agreements with other countries:
“After leaving the EU, the UK will build on these strengths and our historic role as a global trading nation to realise the opportunities available to us. By boosting trade and opening markets and attracting the world’s most successful companies to invest in the UK, we will create jobs and enhance productivity and GDP. Increasing competition and encouraging businesses to innovate enables suppliers to access higher quality and cheaper products in their supply chain and gives consumers more choice and lower prices” (HM Government, P: 54, 2017).
Tenth Point – Ensuring the United Kingdom remains the best place for science and innovation:
“For example HM Treasury has announced that researchers should continue to bid for competitive EU research funding, such as Horizon 2020, while the UK remains a member of the EU. The Government will work with the European Commission to ensure payment when funds are awarded and HM Treasury will underwrite the payment of such awards, even when specific projects continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU. This has given UK participants and their EU partners the certainty needed to plan ahead for projects that can run over many years” (HM Government, P: 58, 2017).
Eleventh Point – Cooperating in the fight against crime and terrorism:
“As we exit, we will therefore look to negotiate the best deal we can with the EU to cooperate in the fight against crime and terrorism. We will seek a strong and close future relationship with the EU, with a focus on operational and practical cross-border cooperation. We will seek a relationship that is capable of responding to the changing threats we face together. Public safety in the UK and the rest of Europe will be at the heart of this aspect of our negotiation” (HM Government, P: 62, 2017).
Twelfth Point – Delivering a smooth, orderly exit from the EU:
“We will formally trigger the process of leaving the EU by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union no later than the end of March this year. As set out in Article 50, the Treaties of the EU will cease to apply to the UK when the withdrawal agreement enters into force, or failing that, two years from the day we submit our notification, unless there is a unanimous agreement with the other 27 Member States to extend the process” (HM Government P: 65, 2017).

My first words after reading the report is that the United Kingdom His Majesties Government White Paper on the Brexit is a leaflet of lose information. This isn’t a sophisticated and a paper that explain the reality of the negotiations. This is the wish-list of the Conservative Party or the Tories who reign for the moment at White Hall under Prime Minister Theresa May.
To say this 77 pages report is digging deep into the extent and the needed details of Brexit is not true. If the Government wanted to be transparent and be accountable on the negotiations or even show the world their play, they would have dropped more intelligence or even more prolific framework on how they would or could negotiate.
If you are thinking that the United Kingdom government will get it all like today and still be not inter-connected as a Member State in the European Union, you’re terribly wrong. The EU has said themselves they will negotiate hard and not make UK get off cheap. It is the UK who has all too loses in the trade-off as the UK cease to be Member State. They might need each other, but it is UK who might lose the heartland of their trade and their exports. The EU can use other trading agreements to secure same sort of services as before.
The only thing other than the punchlines I got from the White Paper today, we can wonder what the Tories and Theresa May didn’t want to release, what they cut out of the paper and for what reasons? If we only knew why the secrecy and the ligancy of trust to the Public, like May knows her borrowed trust cannot handle being manhandled by the European Union. EU certainly would have a field-day on open-communications between the UK and its citizens. The same can be said with the EU MEPs are not really those who are transparent or that open to the public with information from Brussels.
The UK can feel to be shadowed and be kept in dark by the ones who are representing them; they should not trust the Tories with this sort of craft and this offering to the public. If the Brexit is hard/weak or even Red/White/Blue Brexit; Certainly PM May has no interest in trusting advice or listening to other before negotiation the new uncertain agreement with Brussels/EU. If it would be otherwise the Tories and Government would have offered more flesh on the bone and served a steak that could call food, instead we’re offered a sleek thin scone with no flavour what-so-ever! Peace.
Reference:
HM Government – ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union’ (02.02.2017)

Shareholders in the Rainbow Company:



Keir Starmer MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, commenting on the Government’s announcement that they will publish a White Paper, said:
“This is a significant and welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister.
“Labour has repeatedly called for the Government to publish a plan for Brexit before Article 50 is triggered and we made clear Labour would table amendments on this to the Article 50 Bill.
“This U-turn comes just 24 hours after David Davis seemed to rule out a White Paper, and failed to answer repeated questions from MPs on all sides of the House.
“The Prime Minister now needs to confirm that this White Paper will be published in time to inform the Article 50 process, and that it will clear up the inconsistencies, gaps and risks outlined in her speech.”



“The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, at the FCA’s 2016 Financial Crime Conference, stated:15 ‘The UK is attractive to criminals and corrupt kleptocrats who steal billions from their own people, often some of the poorest people in the world.’ The Home Secretary concluded: ‘If…we develop world leading legislation to combat financial crime whilst continuing to develop the capabilities of our law enforcement agencies, then we will reduce the flow of dirty money into the City….’” (RAID, P: 14, 2017).
Well, this is not the first or the last time we will discuss mineral-resources and the extractions of these to gain quick profits, either in sophisticated ways of administrative affairs between the ones the licence the operations to the company, which usually is government officials who are pocketed by subsidiaries if multi-national corporations; this is happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Guinea. As showed in the RAID report of January 2017: “Bribery in its purest form”; that I will uncover certain parts of to show the apparent companies and holding-companies that are owning and operating in the these countries by bribing officials to export minerals. They get ownership of giant mines and resources from these nations as they are licenced after favourable transactions for the governments, as they are kept bribed to uphold production as well.
This happening in nations that are sanctioned and has sanctioned persons that should stop these transactions and licences of United Kingdom and United States corporations, even if they have shell-companies and official headquarters in Tax-Havens that proves the ability of extracting the massive fortunes in these minerals, without proper transparency in the nation they operate with their mining operation.
I think the report should speak for itself and should be publically known to show how they are able to take the monies, profit and also bribing the officials without any consequences, even when the nations of Zimbabwe and DRC had sanctions against it; still the His Majesty Treasury of United Kingdom didn’t stop the transactions and trade with them. This proves that the UK Government doesn’t care about their own sanctions and how their businesses are operating without judgement and fear of getting fined for breaking laws to get rights and takeover mining operations in other countries.
Take a look!
“The review of mining licences that the Congolese government embarked on in 2007, which was supposed to clear up the murky legacy of wartime contracts, provided Och-Ziff and its collaborators with a golden opportunity to snap up valuable assets at knock-down prices. Working with the Congolese political elite, this group were able to exploit the threat of expropriation or revocation of mining permits to their own advantage. By 2014, according to Forbes Magazine, President Joseph Kabila had amassed an estimated personal fortune of US$15 billion in just over 13 years of power.xxiv In 2015, The Sunday Times Rich List estimated Michael Cohen’s wealth to be £335 million (US$500 million). Forbes puts Daniel Och’s (the founder and CEO of Och-Ziff) net worth at US$2.5 billion and Dan Gertler’s wealth at $1.18 billion. The DRC is one of the poorest and least developed nations in the world, ranked 176 out of 188 countries.xxv Almost 87% of its 69 million people live on less than $1.25 a day. Put another way, that $1.25 each day equates to $450 per year, and with life expectancy of 58 years, Och’s personal fortune would last the lifetimes of more than 95,000 Congolese at today’s values” (Raid, P: 10, 2017).
Och-Ziff subsidiaries:
“Mvela Holdings is incorporated in South Africa.31 Mvela Holdings is described in the Och-Ziff release as ‘a private investment company founded in 1998 by Tokyo Sexwale, Mikki Xayiya and Mark Willcox. It is the controlling shareholder of JSE-listed Mvelaphanda Group Ltd and has a significant interest in JSE-listed Mvelaphanda Resources Ltd. It has other substantial privately held interests in the mining, energy, real estate and various other industrial sectors in South Africa and Africa.’ It appears that Mvela did not ultimately participate directly in AML” (…) “Palladino Holdings is described as a private investment vehicle, founded in 2003 by Walter Hennig holding ‘a variety of significant mining, energy and other assets in Africa.’32 A company under the name Palladino Holdings Limited is registered in the UK, and recorded as originating in the Turks & Caicos Islands.33 Other market notifications that refer to Palladino Holdings Limited as a shareholder give an address for Palladino in the Turks & Caicos Islands.34 Palladino Capital 2 Limited, a closely-related Palladino subsidiary behind a controversial loan to the Guinea government (see below), is registered in the British Virgin Islands” (…) “Other than Och-Ziff employees, directors of Africa Management (UK) Limited include or have included, Walter Hennig (Palladino), Andre Cilliers (Palladino) and its chief executive Mark Willcox (also Chief Executive Officer of Mvela Holdings)” (Raid, P: 17, 2017).
Guinea agreement:
“Och-Ziff Employee A and Och-Ziff Employee B, along with the CEO of AML and South African Business Partner, conceived of a related-party transaction that would accomplish these goals….According to the deal documents, South African Business Partner was to buy 31.5 million shares in the oil and gas company from the South African conglomerate for $77 million and then immediately resell 18.5 million of those shares to AGC II for $77 million.…” (…) “Contrary to the deal documents…Och-Ziff Employee A and Och-Ziff Employee B knew that South African Business Partner would not pay the full $77 million to the South African conglomerate. South African Business Partner bought 31.5 million shares…for only $25 million, and then immediately resold 18.5 million shares in that same company to AGC II for $77 million, providing South African Business Partner with $52 million and an additional 13 million shares in the company. With the $52 million, South African Business Partner then paid $2.1 million to Och-Ziff to satisfy an outstanding debt relating to AGC I (in which the Investor had no interest), $25 million to the government of Guinea to try to secure access to valuable mining investments there, $1 million to the agent affiliated with the a high level Guinean government official and his family, and the remainder to personally benefit himself and his business partners” (RAID, P: 19, 2017).
Guinea 2011:
“In or about March 2011, a company controlled by Coconspirator #1 [‘the beneficial owner of the Turks & Caicos Entity’ ] entered into an agreement with the Guinean government, which gave the company the option to buy into the SOMC [‘Guinean state-owned mining company’]. On or about April 29, 2011, an affiliate of the Turks & Caicos Entity loaned the government of Guinea $25 million as part of a deal to become a partner in the SOMC. Coconspirator #1 raised the $25 million through a related-party stock sale to the Joint Venture. MEBIAME signed the loan document on behalf of the affiliate of the Turks & Caicos Entity. According to MEBJAME, the partnership with the SOMC ultimately did not go forward due to negative press accounts, which indicated that the deal between the Guinean government and Coconspirator #1 was corrupt” (…) “He [Alpha Condé] said that he agreed. So we made the loan, we signed the loan to Soguipami…,and so I was authorised to sign and make the transfer.’ Another exhibit – a witness statement, from a UK High Court case, made by the chief executive of a company advising BSGR – states:67 ‘funds were transferred to Alpha Condé by way of a recorded loan of $25million and further unrecorded transfers believed to be “much much more”….Alpha Condé attempted to reward his backers. He entered into an agreement known as the Palladino Contract, pursuant to which the provider of the $25million loan would, on default of the loan, become entitled to a 30% share in a new Guinean national mining company established by Alpha Condé.’ Other exhibits in the ICSID case refer to Walter Hennig and AGC” (RAID, P: 20, 2017).
DRC laundering of mining exports:
“Gertler’s use of London markets to launder DRC assets began with another AIM-traded entity, Nikanor plc. Nikanor plc was described as ‘the holding company of a Group with copper and cobalt assets in the DRC’. The company was incorporated and headquartered in the Isle of Man.87 On 17 July 2007, Nikanor was admitted to AIM” (…) “In the Nikanor admission document, reference is made to allegations that Dan Gertler ‘acquired a temporary monopoly on sales of diamonds from the DRC as a result of improper dealings with the Government of the DRC’.88 The Nikanor admission document concludes that: ‘These allegations do not relate to the Company [Nikanor], the Group or any of their activities. They concern Mr Gertler in his capacity as a shareholder.’ Yet it is stated under ‘risk factors’ in the admission document: ‘…each of the Major Shareholders will be able to exercise significant influence over all matters requiring shareholder approval, including the election of Directors and significant corporate transactions.’ Moreover, there is also a reference to how the group of Nikanor companies with mining assets in the DRC and ‘some of the Major Shareholders’ have been ‘subject to criticism from a number of NGOs’ which included lack of transparency in the process by which the assets were awarded, the absence of public tendering and a joint venture agreement ‘unreasonably favourable to the Group and that as a result Gécamines [the DRC’s state-owned mining company] has not received proper consideration for valuable assets with a resulting detrimental effect on the economy of the DRC”(RAID, P: 22 ,2017).
Another DRC Agreement – Camrose transaction:
“The DOJ refers to ‘a $124 million convertible loan through a subsidiary company and AGC to Company B, a DRC Partner-controlled shell entity, funded in or about and between April and October 2008 (the “Convertible Loan Agreement”)’.121 Under the heading ‘C. Corrupt Takeover of DRC Mining Company’” (…) “the SEC Order states: Also in April 2008, Och-Ziff caused AGC I to enter into an approximately $124 million convertible loan with a holding company affiliated with DRC Partner. The stated uses of these funds were threefold: first, to provide DRC Partner with approximately $15 million to purchase a Congolese entity that had acquired the rights to a valuable mining asset in the DRC (the longstanding asset of a Canadian mining company) through an ex parte default judgment in the DRC that resulted in judicial misconduct proceedings; second, to provide DRC Partner with approximately $100 million to purchase a majority stake in that Canadian mining company in exchange for resolving its legal issues; and third, to advance an additional $9 million to be used for future mining operations in the DRC” (RAID, P: 26, 2017). “The transaction gave Och-Ziff control over what assets could be bought or sold by the entity, equity conversion rights into DRC Partner’s entity, a pledged interest in the shares of the Congolese entity, and a right to future deals with DRC Partner in the DRC. Moreover, the transaction gave DRC Partner complete discretion over how to use approximately $24 million of the funds provided by Och-Ziff. Further, Och-Ziff understood this transaction was part of a broader, ongoing partnership with DRC Partner. Finally, both Och-Ziff Employee A and Och-Ziff Employee B knew that DRC Partner was going to use a portion of the funds to pay bribes, and knew that the transaction was structured to accomplish that goal. This knowledge was not shared with others within Och-Ziff or with outside counsel” (RAID, P: 27, 2017).

Camrose II:
“A 50% interest in Société Minière de Kabolela et Kipese Sprl (‘SMKK’) was acquired on 9 November 2009 as part of the CAMEC acquisition….In 2009 the Group acquired an option, for a cash consideration of US$25 million, to purchase the outstanding 50% of the issued share capital of SMKK by acquiring the entire issued share capital of Emerald Star Enterprises Limited (‘ESEL’), (an entity controlled by the Gertler family trust), the owner of the outstanding 50% of SMKK. The Group exercised this option and the acquisition of ESEL was effectively completed and control obtained by the Group in June 2010. The total cash consideration in respect of the outstanding SMKK shares, inclusive of the US$25 million option, amounted to US$75 million” (…) “Throughout the period of DRC Partner’s acquisition of Kolwezi Tailings and SMKK, DRC Partner continued to make corrupt payments to DRC Official 2. For example, on or about December 23, 2009, DRC Partner delivered $1 million to DRC Official 2; on or about January 5, 2010, DRC Partner delivered $2 million to DRC Official 2” (…) “On or about August 20, 2010, Mining Company 1 acquired 50.5 percent of Company B. Mining Company I agreed to pay up to $575 million over two years, including $50 million in cash. Och-Ziff Employee 3 and Och-Ziff Employee 5 were informed by a co-conspirator that the $50 million was for DRC Partner to “use on the ground” to corruptly acquire Kolwezi Tailings. As part of the deal, Mining Company 1 guaranteed repayment of the Convertible Loan Agreement through a novation of the loan” (RAID, P: 30-31, 2017).
“Camrose Resources Limited, BVI company number: 1055983, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on 9 October 2006. “ (…) ”124 According to the company website: ‘The Fleurette Group is comprised of various businesses organized under Fleurette Properties Ltd., a company established in 2006 for the benefit of the Gertler Family Trust.’ (<http://fleurettegroup.com/>). A press release attributed to Fleurette Properties Limited states: ‘The Fleurette Group of Companies is a Dutch-resident group of companies whose primary activities are the investment in, exploration, exploitation and development of mining assets in Africa. The parent company of the group is called Fleurette Properties Limited, which is owned by Line Trust Corporation Limited strictly and solely on behalf of the Ashdale Settlement, a trust established in 2006 for the benefit of the family of Dan Gertler.’” (RAID, P: 58, 2017).
“Camrose is described as holding indirect interests in five copper and cobalt exploitation licences in DRC, including a 70% interest, via the Highwind Group, in Metalkol Sarl, which ENRC states as owning ‘the tailings exploitation licence covering the Kolwezi Tailings Site (otherwise known as the Kingamyambo Musonoi Tailings, or “KMT”) (PER 652)’. See ENRC plc, ‘Acquisition of 50.5% of the Shares of Camrose Resources Limited’, op. cit” (RAID, P: 59, 2017).
UK gives Concent to Camrose transaction:
“Consent for the Camrose transaction was therefore sought from the UK authorities, consent that was clearly forthcoming. ENRC sought to prevent publication of media reports relating to the SAR: 101Reporters has published not only the SAR, but also the letter it received from ENRC’s lawyers, which stated: ‘you will respect the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality in SARs and remove that aspect from your article.’” (RAID, P: 33, 2017). “There is a permissive pathway by which mines and minerals from zones of conflict and weak governance are transferred to companies trading on AIM who, in turn, through a process of acquisition, transfer these tainted assets to companies in the premium segment of the main market. This process can only be described as asset laundering. Certain of ENRC’s Congolese and Zimbabwean assets, at the heart of the SFO criminal investigation, were derived from the acquisition of AIM-traded Central African Mining and Exploration Company Limited (CAMEC), which was allowed to flourish unchecked on the junior market, despite a myriad of compliance issues that have never been addressed by AIM Regulation” (RAID, P: 34, 2017).

Zimbabwe Platinum deal:
“On 11 April 2008, CAMEC announced the acquisition of an interest in platinum mining assets in Zimbabwe via its acquisition of 100% of Lefever Finance Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands.209 Lefever owned 60% of Todal Mining (Private) Limited, a Zimbabwean company, which held the rights to the Bougai and Kironde claims south west of the city of Gweru in Zimbabwe. 210 The remaining 40% of Todal was held by the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (‘ZMDC’), wholly owned by the Government of Zimbabwe” (…) “…The consideration paid for Lefever was a cash payment of US$5 million and the issue of 215,000,000 new CAMEC ordinary shares. CAMEC’s announcement of the acquisition stated:211 ‘Furthermore, CAMEC has agreed to advance to Lefever an amount of US$100 million by way of loan to enable Lefever to comply with its contractual obligations to the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe. Repayment to Lefever is to be made from the ZMDC’s share of dividends from Todal.’” (…) “According to the company’s own 11 April news release announcing the Zimbabwean platinum deal, CAMEC advanced the $100 million loan to Lefever to enable it ‘to comply with its contractual obligations to the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe “ (PAID, P: 38, 2017).
“Och-Ziff had control over divesting from CAMEC after the platinum deal was announced (Mugabe and senior Zimbabwean government figures were already designated under US sanctions) or after the designation of both the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC – CAMEC’s state-controlled partner in the platinum venture) and Billy Rautenbach, later described by the US as a ‘Mugabe crony’. Och-Ziff, however, held onto its CAMEC shares into 2009, selling its remaining holding only when ENRC acquired CAMEC in November of that year” (RAID, P: 41, 2017).
Important Notes:
“Africa Management is referred to in the Memorandum of Association of Camrose Resources: ‘…Africa Management Limited, a company incorporated in Guernsey with registered number 47651 and whose registered office is at Ogier House, St Julian’s Avenue, St. Peter Port.’ (See Memorandum and Articles of Association of Camrose Resources Limited, Incorporated 9 October 2006, Amendment registered in this 20th day of November 2008, Memorandum of Association, 10 Definitions and Interpretation, 10.1, “Africa Management Limited”)” (RAID, P: 55, 2017).

That this company Och-Ziff and their subsidiaries are handling their business in this way is not acceptable, the way they are catering to corrupt government officials and stifling the citizens of the nations they are earing fortunes. These corporate-stooges are writing-off dozens of nations desirable taxes and regulated levies on businesses. As they are bribing both high-level like Alphe Conde who accepts the deals in Guinea, as well as friends of Joseph Kabila in Democratic Republic of Congo, even getting Tokyo Sexwale the former minister of ANC in South Africa to be parts of their network. These levels of bribing and usage of political connection to get resources and takeover companies with ownership of licences of profitable mines, proves the graft and bribe that occurs to secure extravagant luxury for the government officials that are accepting these deals.
The Och-Ziff are using these subsidiaries and corporations to money laundering or tax-exempt them to gain more profits on the mining in the nations. Certainly done with the leadership knowledge and showed their employee tactics to bribe and secure the transactions and ownership of profitable mines. That is certainly the reason for these sophisticated business-models, that enrichen the corporate leadership and gives government officials giant envelopes to give away nations vital resources. These well-planned well-crafted companies that uses all kind of loopholes and ways to escape the punishment for their breaching of international and national law to salvage as much profit as possible.
The long-term effect is certainly that the Guinean, Congolese and Zimbabwean government get less tax on the dollar as the corporate leadership pays them directly a smaller fee, than actually paying the legitimate taxation for their operation and their owned businesses. These actions shouldn’t be in the wind, it should be in the public and be addressed, even send the corporate leadership and government officials should answer to the public thievery as the minerals are taken without proper legal rights because of the fraud, secondly the corporate and the government officials are implicated in the thievery and should be sanctioned by courts and under the rule of law. Third the corporations themselves should lose the licence and the mining operations as they got them without proper procedure and there is invalid. They should also be fined and get banned from working in this nations or the corporations with these corporate bosses that are acting for them to gain this default destructive profits. Peace.
Reference:
Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) – ‘‘Bribery in its purest form’: Och-Ziff, asset laundering and the London connection’ January 2017

#NBSFrontline is wasting all people’s time with discussing the succession of President Museveni and change from the ruling party National Resistance Movement (NRM). Well, even if the wife of Dr. Kizza Besigye is surely a viable candidate; the famous Oxfam leader Winnie Byanyima and her new quest for becoming a Presidential Candidate. That is a noble idea of a genuine and caring individual with an amazing track-record and spokesperson for the oppressed. Still, the talk of succession right now is premature.
The reason for the premature is that the process for anyone taking the reins from President Museveni is a closed door, a barricaded castle and sealed of courthouse. The President who has been in charge since 1986 hasn’t showed any real proof of wanting to stepdown. He has promised it twice, but that hasn’t mattered. Mzee has changed his mind and thought of the idea of not having the reserves of Bank of Uganda and gone back into the race, gone with guns and made sure the campaigns of his competitors has been a living hell. That he do best, also secure that the Electoral Commission is run by loyalist who will deliver the needed numbers to run the Parliament and the mandate to be a strong President.
Mzee hasn’t given any way to anybody you could ask the few left of the bush-war generation, the ones that are left and still around knows this is true. A man who sends army against his own after taking power, you know he isn’t giving up easy.

Mzee himself said this: “You see when you give them (civil population in the North and East) a good beating then those who are using them will no longer use them. Since the month of January (1987), we have given them much beating especially in Lira and Kitgum Districts. And in fact the week I left (for Yugoslavia) we had given them a good blow in Gulu District. So it is going to settle down”. (New Vision, January 19, 1987).
The years of election rigging, paying citizens small fees in the villages while being on the road, the years of promising grand project and not delivering should be reasons for the change of leadership. But the people should have created turmoil as the President has the army and the monies that are forged through his illegitimate government. Instead they let him steal the nation and smile over pennies. Therefore the President fears for his life after the years on the throne as the marble and treasury chest might be looted by the ones that he was in charge of or even the grandchildren of the men who died to get him in power.
As long as President Museveni is in charge he will not bow-down with grace. There wouldn’t be any mercy he played the rights for the citizens and justice for the people that had been under Dr. Milton Obote and Gen. Idi Amin Dada. Who both had been Presidents for a long time before him; Museveni went to the bush to get rid of them both and just took away the Presidency of Yusuf Lule because he could.
When a man who made relationship with both Libyans and Americans to get weapons and make sure the power got into his hands. Doesn’t really care to what extent he will do to keep it, he will play all sorts of political games and use the tactics of the former leaders, but try to do it better to gain himself. He might give way to somebody, but only so he can destroy their career and silence them.

So even if Winnie Byanyima decides to run what will be different between the former ones running against President Museveni? Museveni has eaten a spit out Dr. Olara Otunnu, Norbert Mao, Dr. Paul Ssemogerere, Amama Mbabazi and Dr. Kizza Besigye.
They have all run against him and caught his wrath, his tactics and his methods of oppression as he beats the drums at the opposition rallies with bullets, tear-gas and close the venues without any reason. The laws have been changed and amended to make it usually worse for the competition and make sure the President stays the President. Like the time to make a petition for the Presidential Election is really short, while the Presidential Candidate are by law even if struggled to get funds has to visit all district in the campaign. This is while the President takes helicopter and the others stresses through the rainy-season on washed mountain roads and districts. Something that is easily forgotten the laws and procedures are made to secure the President, not make sure the fellow or person that Ugandans want to be President is actually the President.

Because if the succession had been a thing then there wouldn’t be the idea of if somebody becomes too ambitious in the ruling regime and ruling party than they have been demoted by the President. Museveni has had a few Vice-Presidents, at the first period of his reign he didn’t have any until his first inner-party elections. After that the ones under him has been Hon. Samson Kisekka, Hon. Specioza Kazibwe and Hon. Prof. Gilbert Bukenya. As well as there been changes of Prime Ministers, because at this state the current President has had six of them.
The #NBSFrontline none of this came up in the discussion as the ones discussing it we’re into gender politics and the left-over, left-behind former party officials of the National Resistance Movement. Even the main contenders in the recent presidential race where former loyalist of the President, Besigye and Mbabazi has been vital and key persons in the Movement System as we know it.
We should just know that President Museveni has no plans to let anybody else than him have the throne, no other can rule than him. All of his game is for him to rule the nation and eat of the government plate. Peace.