Ann: Results of Meeting, page-14

I understand the logic of this, but witch-hunts are always dependent on the presumption of guilt without proof. I am not disagreeing with the correctness of fully probing for what happened and of who wrongly and knowingly benefitted, but one is obliged to go no further than asking questions until one gets answers that definitely implicate suspected parties. After that is provided then what you suggest would be quite reasonable. In ZZ's case I can see a case for that being reasonable. After all the investigations I have still seen nothing to implicate LF. By all means bring evidence to the table. Provide it to the AFP even. But suspicion based on what at best may be circumstantial evidence of LF having received benefits is inadequate. In this it will be interesting to see RS's role being brought to light however. That fact that that investigation is ongoing gives me increased confidence in the current board and management - not less.