Podcast excerpt·FRI, 04 SEPT 2026 · 14:21:38–14:24:36 SAST
A short excerpt from Will court bail out Cyril on Phala Phala? on SMWX. Watermarked for fair-dealing attribution, free to share.
As transcribed
Tap a line to jump
Gaps. Yeah. On his version, it would appear that he instructed Mr. Njovu to have the money stored on the farm pending the return of Mr. von Welich. Mr. Njrovu decided that the money must be stored in the president's private residence in a sofa below cushions. It is not clear whether the money was stored below the cushions or inside the sofa. If a sum of $580,000 in cash money was stored below the cushions, it would have been visible to anyone passing by. You see, the problem
The problem with the president's account is that his own account incriminates him. He tells us the money, he, no, no one else, he tells us the money was stored below the cushions of a sofa. So that's not in dispute, that's evidence. But how can $580,000 be below the cushions? Can you see how that phrase makes it sound like, ah, I just kind of put it on the couch there? $580,000 below cushions. How big are these cushions?
They said on paragraph 118, on a probability the money was carefully stored inside the sofa in such a manner that no one would notice that there was money in the sofa, which makes a lot of sense if you were trying to conceal money. It certainly wasn't below cushions, it was inside the couch. This means that the sofa would have been opened up underneath and the money stored inside the frame.
Of the sofa. Thereafter, the underneath cover would have had to be carefully replaced, otherwise, the money would fall out onto the floor. But why go through this process of turning the sofa upside down, opening it up, and stuffing the inside of a sofa to store money that was destined for the bank shortly? This was a leather sofa, one suspect said. So I think one thing that has been really frustrating about the questions that have been asked to the opposition is.
They followed the following pattern. Yeah, but where's the evidence for this? Where's the countervailing evidence for that? Where's the slam dunk? Firstly, a preliminary inquiry doesn't need to find anything slam-dunk. But secondly, the evidence is the president's own version. That's not hearsay. That's not inadmissible. And quite frankly, just so either the president admits to a lot, which has to be taken into account by the panel, but where his version
Contains clearly and obviously implausible gaps. The mere fact that it is an affidavit does not mean that the panel has to believe it. If someone swears under oath that the sky is green, there's no reason for an independent preliminary panel to say, oh, well, it's an affidavit, so tick, the sky is green. I mean, below the cushions of a sofa? Let's. Let's be real. You know what? I actually can't even talk about this case anymore.
End excerpt