Ann: Government of Mali - Update, page-59

Wait wait wait wait wait…. So let me see if I get this right. Let’s focus on Scott Lowe for a minute here



this newest announcement says Scott Lowe has had several meetings with government officials and by all accounts, it’s fair to say Scott Lowe would have the most in-depth knowledge about it being the MD… so by all accounts, he would be the most vital employee we currently have to this whole process.

in this latest update, FFX disclose they received the letter from the Mali gov on the 18th of July 2023


Referencing timelines, 3 DAYS LATER, FFX announces a TERMINATION of Scott Lowe by MUTUAL agreement! Why would FFX want Lowe to be gone after issues raise by Mali which are completely disruptive to the entire process they had been working on for OVER 6 months?



As we know, Lowe was paid out handsomely for the termination… a termination that is NOT in the benefit of sharesholders or the company. This termination, when compared to his original employment details makes no sense.

pay out:


original termination agreement:


So if Scott Lowe wanted out, he needed to provide 3 months notice. Why would the company allow this final date?

if the company wanted Scott Lowe out, they needed to provide 6 months notice…. Why by mutual agreement would under 3 month notice be in the interest of shareholders and the company?

2 days after the letter from the Mali gov, and 1 day before Scott Lowe’s termination, FFX announce the 249d announcement. Scott lowe was not mentioned in the 249d removal and the incoming board wished to work along side him.



9 days after the Mali gov letter
7 days after the 249d
6 days after announcing the mutual termination of Scott Lowe with final working day the 31/08/23

MRC announce the employment of Scott Lowe start on the 01/09/2023!



So what have we got here?

The termination benefited Scott Lowe with his new employment and insane inflated benefits.
The termination benefitted the current board with their defense to the 249d.
The termination negatively impacted shareholders by removing the most involved person in the single most disruptive step since the loss of Morila. Negative to shareholders that we received less than 3 months service, a minimum previously stated possible outcome. A negative for shareholders for the insane inflated bonus price for the termination.
How…HOW does the board justify all the above? I honestly don’t believe these actions are in any way in the interest of shareholders!