The final week before the General Meeting, page-29

@Empty Nose apology for the tag

It is fair and reasonable to suggest as they have announced receiving a Letter from the Minister of Mines (Government?) that in part the social media post was correct? They refuted only the suggestion of Court Orders being issued .. .. ..

If they had not received anything from the government, they would have either just ignored the social media post? or their announcement would have said as much?

The removed social media post wasn't the sole source of references made towards the Company.
Although, the other source (direct correspondence with me) only made references to Morila's failed attempts in communicating with the Company and no mention of the Mali government sending a letter.
The following is a reply received on the 27th July, it is in the format as it was received (not a translation)
Dr Traore an Environmental Scientist

This correspondence was initiated after I read of the Minister of Mines meeting and corresponds with the timing of the social media post and my engagement with Dr Traore.




But, here we are ..... the Company did receive letters from the Government of Mali, and I guess they are/were forced to the table?
~ or we are just acting in good faith?

The Board have on repeated occasions stated they no longer have lines of communication with Morila, which is in contradiction to the subject of this exchange?
~ it is probably not the communication they wanted though, head in sand?

No offence to the poster (can't remember who) that was critical of what the Action group were doing, saying it would backfire, this has now turned into cannon barrel melting episode.

Scratches head, could this be construed as a significant disruptive action to the negotiations event? or has the Board managed to elevate the action groups' mere significant to more significant or do we jump to substantial/more substantial or just go for monumental cluster (expletive deleted)?


cheers