Who's Guilty? Teffo blocked, Chauke cleared, Johnson grilled & Mapisa-Nqakula on trial

[00:00:00]Sometimes one big story happens in a day and on a really good news day, maybe two big stories. But today, our courts were filled to the brim with high-profile cases. It's like they were coming at us like a ton of bricks. I think we can all agree that South Africa's legal system has been serving up enough twists and turns lately to make even the most dramatic courtroom series look like a documentary. One advocate walks out of court after being acquitted on six criminal charges and says essentially, "I'm coming back." But the legal practice council says, "Hold on, not so fast." Then there's a senior prosecutor who has spent an entire year on suspension, facing serious allegations about his conduct in some of South Africa's most controversial criminal cases, only to now be declared fit to hold office. At the Madanga Commission, an intense legal debate unfolds over something that sounds simple but clearly isn't. What exactly is a reasonable suspicion under the law? And finally, one of South Africa's biggest political corruption trials is officially underway with the former National Assembly speaker sitting in court facing allegations involving millions of reigns in alleged bribes. And if that wasn't enough, the man who first brought these allegations to parliament is now the first witness in that trial.

[00:01:25]>> As as you sit here today, is is that appropriate of IDC to be soliciting [clears throat] complaints from members of the public on the basis of which then IDC initiates investigations.

[00:01:39]No, we're not supposed to solicit. And that is why I'm saying the engage I tell Mr. Perma to engage Mr. Adams. I don't know if this was a prepared affidavit already.

[00:01:52]>> Yes, South African law is once again giving us a lot to talk about. So today we're looking at four major stories making waves across the country's legal and criminal justice system. We're talking about the dramatic clearance of the south director of public prosecutions advocate Andrew Chow. We are unpacking the legal roadblocks standing between advocate Malisela Divo and his promised return to the courtroom. We are heading back to the Madalanga Commission where IDC boss Andrea Johnson found herself under intense questioning over the handling of allegations surrounding crime intelligence boss Dumisani Kumalo. And finally, we're taking a closer look at the opening day of former National Assembly Speaker Nosis Nagula's corruption trial, including the testimony of UDM leader Bandu Holomiza.

[00:02:41]Four stories, four very different legal battles. So stick with me in this reveting episode of Daily Updates with yours truly, Miss Media. Yep, that's me.

[00:02:52]As we go straight to court and to commissions of inquiry. And today's episode is proudly powered by Plexet Fiber. Affordable, reliable fiber internet built for you. Whether you're catching up on the latest news or streaming your favorite content, Plexet Fiber helps to keep you connected. Scan the QR code on your screen right now to see what PLNET has in store for you. Or you can use the link down below in the description to connect with PlaxNet. The link is also in my bio. See you there.

[00:03:21]Before we get going, if you enjoy these breakdowns, please do make sure to subscribe to the channel and I want to give a special thanks to everyone who sends me super thanks in the comments section. I really, really appreciate it.

[00:03:33]Your support is the engine that keeps me going. Let's start with the story that has raised the most important questions about accountability, prosetorial independence, and the power of the office of the NPA. South Ken director of public prosecutions advocate Andrew Chong has been declared fit to hold office. This is after spending roughly a year on suspension. The decision follows an inquiry into whether Chaok was fit to continue serving in that position.

[00:04:01]According to the information before us, retired constitutional justice Bessen Gabinde led the panel that investigated the allegations against Chawi. The report was then formally handed over to President Sir Ramaposa earlier this month and now the conclusion is clear.

[00:04:17]There's no basis to find that Chaok is not fit to hold office. But getting to this point has been a long and highly scrutinized process. Chaoke was suspended in July of 2025 and remained on paid suspension while the inquiry into his conduct played out.

[00:04:34]>> You see, this is where I want to really get your comment on. We have a strange scenario in this case of advocate BTO saying the only thing she ever read about Kmanu was the report by um advocate Tikoku.

[00:04:51]>> Yes.

[00:04:51]>> Only thing >> she ever read.

[00:04:54]>> She's got no other reference point other than that report.

[00:04:57]>> Yes.

[00:04:59]Yet she has made so many significant decisions of withdrawing a case and recommending to the DPP of Kes that uh against boy Mr. the boys in the case must be withdrawn but the only document she has is that instrument now and I put to that look contrary to what you've done advocate actually has read the material from the dockets although he's a coordinator but he's steeped in the facts he knows what's going on in the case and that's where I want you just you to tell us what you actually read coming from these documents Yeah, there there is a list that I I prepared. I'm not so sure if the copies would have been made to to the >> um I don't I thought it had been handed up. Uh it has not been >> not that I'm aware.

[00:05:56]>> No, no, no. That's fine. Don't worry.

[00:05:57]>> We able to understand what the case is all about so that I'm able from time to time to brief the the NTP.

[00:06:04]>> Yes. Yes. Because you know the accusation you've heard it is that if you look at the number of meetings that advocate childare attended it contradicts his claim that he was not involved in the prosecution decisionm he was merely coordinating that's really the case that is being made what do you say to that it's relative you can't be a coordinator and then you you're passive you sit in your office you you you you you don't really get involved in terms of logistics and understand what these guys they are going through and like in terms of as you'll see some it's about security some it's about this the stakeholder engagements where where they would have this differences with the investigation team or the iPad and the like so I I needed to coordinate and and do those kind of things >> and in in some in some of the instances because of the highprofile nature of of the cases I would attend a a meetings where if you're a coordinator, you can't you you can't say because I'm a coordinator, I can't listen to say this this case is this about and whatever and this is what we want to do and this is the evidence in there.

[00:07:16]>> The suspension came almost 2 years after former national public prosecutions advocate leader Shama Badoi first asked President Ramaposa to institute proceedings against him. The allegations were serious. They centered, among other things, on the withdrawal of several prosecutions linked to state capture and what was described as broader concerns about the performance of the south office. When the presidency announced Chiao's suspension last year, it said that allowing him to remain in office while facing serious allegations could undermine public confidence in the NPA.

[00:07:51]Over the years, Chow had also faced accusations from critics who claimed he had protected politically connected people from prosecution. Those were allegations. They were not findings of guilt, but they became part of the broader scrutiny surrounding his conduct. The inquiry looked at several controversial matters. Among them were allegations that Chow had delayed prosecutions involving the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, better known as Prasa. There were also allegations that he had interfered in the longunning 1.2 billion rand corruption case involving former Koing health embassy Brian Chongwa. Another issue involved former crime intelligence boss Richard Mlulli. Chow was accused of declining to prosecute Mrouli on murder related charges. At the same time, Chowoge was scrutinized over his role in the racketeering prosecution of former Kes and Hawk's head Johan Boen and members of the Kato Mena Organized Crime Unit. Badi made accusations. Choke rejected the allegations. But in December last year, Badoi abruptly ended her testimony and declined to continue with cross-examination without further consultation.

[00:09:02]>> Good afternoon, Advocate Bi.

[00:09:04]>> Afternoon, judge.

[00:09:07]We have just been informed when we were about to come here and resume that uh you decided that you are not coming back because you would like to go and consult council. Correct.

[00:09:25]>> That is correct.

[00:09:27]And you decided to stay away without seeking our permission before you left.

[00:09:37]I decided chairperson that I was not going to come back pending getting proper legal counsel >> and you made the decision without us giving direction or permission for you to leave whilst you are still being cross examined.

[00:09:56]>> That's correct chairperson.

[00:09:58]>> Why so?

[00:10:01]because I think it's a >> I think it's an important decision and it's one that I need to take myself.

[00:10:07]>> I'm not asking you about your decision.

[00:10:09]I'm asking you.

[00:10:11]You are before us and you decide that you are leaving without approaching us with a request or an application through your team to give you that permission and you stay away.

[00:10:33]Chairperson, I wasn't seeking permission. It's something that I decided I needed to do because it is about me and my integrity.

[00:10:42]>> So you can do whatever you want without approaching us.

[00:10:47]>> Chairperson, I didn't want to come here because I did not want to be subjected to this kind of questioning. I would appreciate it if I can be excused. Now >> I'm asking you questions first before we excuse you. That's why we called you back to the hearing chamber because this inquiry is instituted at your instance and we've been appointed to preside over this inquiry and you decide totally disregarding this panel and to walk away and not decide not to come back here.

[00:11:34]Jefferson, I was in the building when I was told to come back. I did come back.

[00:11:37]>> Do you want to walk away now?

[00:11:41]>> I would appreciate it if I can be excused.

[00:11:44]>> This is the request that you ought to have made before you behave the way you did.

[00:11:50]>> Understood.

[00:11:51]>> In a letter, the president said that based on the report of the panel led by Justice Inabinde, there was no basis to conclude that Chaok was not fit to hold office. So what does this mean? Well, it means that after a year on suspension and after an inquiry into some extremely serious allegations, Choke has effectively been cleared to continue his job. And so after a lengthy period of uncertainty, Andrew Chalk's future in the NPA appears to have been settled.

[00:12:20]What do you think about that? Do you agree with this decision? Let me know your thoughts in the comments section.

[00:12:25]Now, if you've been following the Senzo Mayua murder trial, you will know that advocate Malissa Latifo is no stranger to controversy.

[00:12:33]>> Uh, like I said, let me put in the right context.

[00:12:36]>> No, I'm not here to watch to sit and watch.

[00:12:38]>> You You are You are not going to address me.

[00:12:41]>> I've been given instructions, [cough] several instructions [clears throat] by Maya, the brother of the deceased.

[00:12:47]I've been given the instruction.

[00:12:49]>> You are disturbing.

[00:12:51]>> You are disturbing court. Please sit down or I will order that you be taken out. You are disturbing us.

[00:12:58]>> If you feel like that, you can do that.

[00:13:00]But you must know that you're depriving the right people who are affected by this.

[00:13:03]>> Yes.

[00:13:04]>> Your witness is of the great interest to >> Mr. Mr. sit down and allow advocate Baloy to continue with what is of interest in this case, which is what I want to hear.

[00:13:20]There's a ruling for me to make and time is of essence. I'm saying sit down and allow advocate Baloy. This is an interruption and it is rude if you ask me. It is a rude interruption which is unnecessary for our purposes. Every you are not the only watching brief that was spoken about in this case. There's never been a watching brief here who has interrupted proceedings.

[00:13:48]I'm not I'm not just watching >> and watching briefs don't address court.

[00:13:52]On whose behalf are you are you are you addressing me?

[00:13:55]>> I am not just watching briefs. I instructed >> Mr. Mr. Teo please >> step sit down. If you don't sit down >> if you address me wasting time again I request the court order to and whoever is responsible in this court to make sure that you are taken out. I'm not intending to interrupt this.

[00:14:17]>> Sit down. Sit down.

[00:14:20]Mr. I'm here to bring the submission later.

[00:14:24]>> I told you that. I've heard that.

[00:14:26]>> Why must you say it 100 times?

[00:14:29]>> Thank you.

[00:14:30]>> And this week, Defo made headlines again. In fact, he made them today. This time it was because of an acquitt. Defo was acquitted on all six criminal charges brought against him. and understandably he says he's relieved.

[00:14:44]But just as he appeared to be preparing for a courtroom comeback, the legal practice council stepped in with a very important clarification. In simple terms, an aquitt does not automatically put Defo back on the legal role. The LPC has made it clear that DEO remains struck from the role of legal practitioners and therefore according to the council he is not currently entitled to practice law in South Africa. Um earlier uh today we issued a statement as the legal practice council confirming that uh Mr. Malisa remains struck off.

[00:15:19]So he has not been readmitted. Um the reason we issued that statement was that there are media uh posts and and some media have started running with the story slowly that he's been admitted.

[00:15:32]That is not the case. Um just to perhaps um take you through what would happen if there is a readmission.

[00:15:43]A legal practitioner wishing to be readmitted would need to make an application to court because legal practitioners are officers of the court.

[00:15:52]The LPC as the regulator would then be afforded an opportunity to express a view as to whether we think this person is fit and proper and that they have been rehabilitated [clears throat] after they were struck off. No such application has been before the legal practice whether it's through our provincial council and not even at national council level. So as things stand there has not been a Malisa matter before LPC and we have not been given an opportunity to um to oppose such a matter which um in all likelihood the council may may choose to go that way but still it's still the council decision.

[00:16:35]>> This is where things get legally interesting became a household name during his time representing four accused in the high-profile case of Senzo Maywa. The case attracted enormous public attention and it still does today and before himself became one of its most recognized figures. He repeatedly raised allegations of political interference and conspiracy involving senior figures. DeFor eventually withdrew from the trial in 2022, but the controversy did not end there. In 2023, he was arrested and charged with six offenses, including defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, common assault, and criminal injury. Defo consistently maintained that the charges were politically motivated.

[00:17:19]>> The arrest today of the defense advocate. Many are saying it is malicious. He of course says it is linked to the Senzo Maywa case. And the conspiracy is that there are senior officers, politicians, including yourself and those in high office in the NPA who are allegedly not happy with the way that he is handling this case. Um, what do you firstly say to the allegations leveled against you that you don't personally want him on this case?

[00:17:51]>> Well, let me [clears throat] give a little bit of thanks to Tabo and the rest of your viewership. Uh today from 8:00 a.m. I left quarter to 7. I was in Pimville and I left Pimville little bit after 3 and is when I received the message on the phone from the spokesperson Lanzo saying that the advocate has been arrested. And a few minutes later at uh at 3:41 I received the message that the accusation is that uh the the arrest is pushed by the minister Ben and others.

[00:18:35]Then I immediately touch the national commissioner to get a full report of what happened and then h I I wait for that report until I know what really happened. H I'm not able to comment on this matter.

[00:18:51]>> Yeah.

[00:18:51]>> Following his aquitt, he spoke about the impact of the criminal proceedings on his reputation and legal career. He said his name had been damaged and that some clients had lost trust in him. He also said that matters he had been handling had stalled because of the criminal case. But then came an announcement that he was ready to return to the courtroom.

[00:19:12]And more specifically, he said he intended returning to the Senzoa Meta.

[00:19:17]But there is a rather large legal obstacle in his way. The LPC says Sto remains struck from the role. The council said there had been reports suggesting that his acquitt automatically restored his right to practice law. It categorically rejected that idea. A criminal acquitt answers one question. Was he proven guilty in a court of law? And the answer to that is no. But a striking order where you are struck off the role deals with a different question. Is the person fit and proper to remain in the legal profession? Those are not the same legal tests. Ignatius Belle, the LPC's provincial director, explained that DEFO's a quiddle took place in a Ptoria magistrate's court while the order striking him from the role was granted by the high court. His point was straightforward. A magistrate's judgment cannot simply override a high court order. The LPC also says defer striking of was based on more than criminal charges. So where does that leave Defo?

[00:20:20]Well, his criminal acquittal is certainly significant. It means that he was found not guilty of all the charges against him. But it does not by itself restore his status as a practicing legal practitioner. For default to return to legal practice, a formal readmission process would have to be followed and ultimately the court would have to determine whether he should be readmitted. This is also why the Senzo Mayua matter remains complicated. Defor says he wants to return, but wanting to return and being legally entitled to appear in court are two very different things. For now, the LPC's message is clear. Nope, not today. Now we move on to the Malanga Commission and this story is all about one deceptively simple question. Was there ever a proper complaint? IDC head advocate Andrea Johnson faced intense questioning at the commission over the handling of allegations involving the employment of crime intelligence brigadier Dino Mui.

[00:21:20]The questioning became particularly intense when the commission examined the legal requirements surrounding section 27 affidavit and the threshold required before an investigation can be initiated. Johnson was questioned about whether there had ever been a specific formal complaint relating to Mugili's appointment and this is where things became complicated. Johnson explained that the investigation stemmed from a section 27 affidavit obtained from Fadil Adams. We know all of this, but she acknowledged that the initial referral itself was not a section 27 affidavit.

[00:21:55]IDC therefore engaged Adams to obtain one. Here's what she said.

[00:22:00]>> I I I speak under correction. Mr. Pamal would have to answer what he got from Mr. Adams, but what we got was a 27 dated the 21st of November 2024.

[00:22:13]>> That's right. Um my question is that document you're holding in your hand I' solicited it from Mr. Adams. You received a letter from the minister. You then directed Mr. Peruml to act on that and contact Mr. Adams and ask him for his ask him. So you solicited an a section 27 affidavit from a Mr. a wouldbe complainant.

[00:22:39]>> I don't agree with the solicited. Ma'am, >> I don't agree with solicited. We would have asked him because I I'm going into the detail that's not mine and not in my head and I don't want to sound. It's yours. It's yours.

[00:22:57]Advocate Johnson.

[00:23:00]You are the one who gave an instruction to Chief Perumman to contact Mr. Adams.

[00:23:07]So, Ms. Silo's question relates to that that has nothing to do Mr. Perumal would then have been the actor actor on your instruction that's where the question is it has nothing to do with what Mr. Perumal then did down the line so please please do not deflect the question and refer to to to what Mr. peral would have done or not done. Can you please respond to the question?

[00:23:36]>> Then we would have obtained the statement >> at your instance. That's the substance of the question.

[00:23:42]>> That is true.

[00:23:43]>> That's that's that's that's what Melo means when when when she says to you, so you solicited the affidavit because what came out of your instruction that please contact Mr. Adams >> was the submission of the section 27 affidavit.

[00:24:05]So it's on that basis that MO is suggesting to you. You solicited that affidavit. Do you now agree?

[00:24:13]>> I agree.

[00:24:15]>> And that brings us to one of the most important issues raised during the testimony. How far can an investigative body go when the original complaint does not clearly establish the factual basis for a reasonable suspicion? Those are important questions to ask because IDC is tasked with investigating serious corruption. But the powers of investigative institutions must also be exercised within the law. Johnson's testimony therefore placed the spotlight not only on the mug matter but also on the broader legal framework governing IDC. One issue that came to light was all the other crime intelligence officials who happened to be investigated coming from that section 27 from Fadil Adams. Now the commission wanted to know why IDC investigated those people and commissioner Baloy raised some important questions. Let's hear it for ourselves.

[00:25:11]you you don't seem to abide the terms of this section 27. Even if she proposes the names to you, you you're the final decision maker. You're the in charge. You're the one that's authorizing an investigation. It's difficult to conceive of a situation where she comes back to you and she gives you a list of names and you don't say no we can't do that because it doesn't arise from this affidavit we haven't started an investigation so I know you didn't get those names from an investigation I know you didn't do that we have at this point only this affidavit and and you don't say we are obliged to work with what we've got. We can't do whatever we feel like. It's difficult to to understand that you would be party if if this is her giving she gave you these names that you are happy to sign off uh a truly invasive investigation because your powers to hear evidence means you can call these people. You can look into their affairs.

[00:26:24]That's what it means. and you do it outside the corners of the only document you have on which you could work with.

[00:26:33]You the head are not in a position and you do not say to to your uh prosecutor that we are not doing that. We are bound by law. We are bound by rules to investigate that which is properly given to us. It's it's a misuse of powers.

[00:26:51]Whether it comes from her or from you at this stage, this is a misuse of powers to take intrusive steps and action against people on this affidavit. You have no justification whatsoever on this affidavit to be looking into even by name Duvallo whoever is automative engineer. you have absolutely no legitimate and valid basis to look into them. Maybe there is something to look at later on, but we are still at this affidavit stage where you are authorizing that they be called in that their affairs, their bank statements be looked into um and their lifestyles and everything and about them and they come they must come to interviews under threat of if you do not cooperate it's a criminal offense.

[00:27:48]You're happy to do all of that when in fact the document the only document on which you rely to act as you do in this document um doesn't doesn't create a basis for it.

[00:28:05]It it's to me it's an yet another instance where you in particular have misused your powers to go where you are not authorized to go. There's no legitimate basis to do this.

[00:28:25]Do you want to comment?

[00:28:28]>> I have no comment. Chair >> and there was another development.

[00:28:32]Johnson asked whether she could leave the commission early, saying that her medication was having an adverse effect on her. You'll remember that on the first day that she was due to testify, she took ill and could not testify. The commission then adjourned early at 300 p.m., but the legal questions raised during her testimony are unlikely to disappear. And when she comes back tomorrow, hopefully she will likely still have to answer some of those questions. And now we come to one of the biggest stories of the day. The corruption trial of former National Assembly Speaker Nosis Makula has officially begun. And right from day one, the courtroom heard allegations involving millions of RS, government contracts, and alleged cash payments.

[00:29:16]Mapis Nakula has pleaded not guilty. She faces 12 counts of corruption and one count of money laundering. The state alleges that she solicited about 4.5 million rand in bribes from defense contractor.

[00:29:32]This allegedly happened during her time as minister of defense and military veterans. Misangula has denied wrongdoing. She has admitted that construction and upgrades were carried out at her home while she was serving as a minister, but she denies that those upgrades were connected to bribes or that she solicited or accepted corrupt payments from anyone, especially not in Zanhau. The case dates back to a period between December of 2016 and July of 2019. At the center of the state's case is the relationship between her and Zonjouvu who was the sole director of Kombbe Marine. The company had contracts with the South African National Defense Force. The state alleges that after the contracts were awarded a series of payment requests were made and according to the prosecution there were 12 separate cash payments. The alleged requests totaled 4.5 million rand. Yes, you heard it right, 4.5 million rand.

[00:30:31]But the state says only 2.1 million rand was ultimately paid. A further 2.4 million rand in alleged requests was never fulfilled. The prosecution presented the alleged timeline of contracts and payments. The company reportedly received a 1.5 million rand tender in 2013. Then in 2016, it was 24 million rand and another contract valued at 79 million rand. The state says that an even larger tender with a 100 million rand was initially awarded to the company but later withdrawn and replaced with the 79 million rand contract.

[00:31:05]According to the prosecution, the alleged payment request began around the time the third contract was awarded.

[00:31:11]>> The initial request were made through the late Dr. Sami and later request directly via WhatsApp.

[00:31:18]code words such as imper and snuff featured as means to disguise a request for for cash. The first payment request, this was one for 300,000 rand and this was made between November 2016 and December 2016 when the accused made this request from Lombasa for cribing expenses for her and the family. This request was made by the late Dr. And then the first witness of the day took the stand. It was UDM leader Bandu Holisa. Holisa spoke about how the allegations came to light. He says Zanjouvu approached him in December of 2020 and according to his testimony, she was emotional and told him that she had been forced to pay money to Misangula.

[00:32:04]She allegedly told him that she had proof. Homissa said that this immediately caught his attention. He testified that Enzon Ranjouvu told him that her heart was sore and that she felt that she had been used or perhaps even robbed. The two allegedly met several times. Homissa also told the court that he had no personal grudge against Mapis Nagula or her husband Charles Lagula. In fact, he said that they had known each other for years. he had attended gatherings at their home and said that they continued to speak when they encountered each other at public events even after the allegations became public. This testimony is significant because Holomisa is not presenting himself as someone who had a personal conflict with Mapis Nakula.

[00:32:47]Instead, he says that he believed the allegations were sufficiently serious that he had a responsibility to report them. Well, as you pointed out correctly, they are indeed allegations and the state still has to come before the judge and it still has to prove all the allegations that are made. As you have seen in earlier [clears throat] in the morning, the state has made an elaborate statement in terms of section 115 displaying what it it plans to prove before the court about the in relation to all the allegations that are labeled against our client. Um, our [snorts] client however has invoked a constitutional right not to make any statement at this point and her rights in terms of section 105 as well of of the criminal procedure act that she will keep quiet and let the state prove its case. And it is indeed her right to do so. And we will see as time goes on if the state does prove what it has so eloquently laid before the court and the allegations and all the the dramatics that have been displayed to be a primacy case of the state. So tomorrow the the actual um victim or the owner of the company that was supposed to be extorted um is going to be testifying.

[00:34:19]>> The case now moves to the next phase is expected to testify as well. And there you have it folks, four stories, four very different legal battles. And perhaps the biggest lesson from all four stories is this. In South Africa's criminal justice system, the law doesn't always end the story. Sometimes it starts another one. An acquittle can be followed by a professional disciplinary battle. An inquiry can end with a senior official being cleared. A corruption allegation can spend years moving through parliament. The police and the courts before finally reaching trial.

[00:34:55]And at the commission of inquiry, one word in a legal provision can trigger hours of questioning. Subjective.

[00:35:02]objective, reasonable, fit, proper, beyond a reasonable doubt. These aren't just legal terms. They can determine careers, reputations, investigations, and ultimately whether someone gets their day in court or not. But now I want to hear from you. Do you think that advocate Andrew Choke's clearance brings an end to the controversy surrounding him? Do you think Malissa Latifo should be allowed to go back to the courtroom after his acquittal? And what did you make of Andrea Johnson's testimony at the commission today? Finally, as the Mapis Nagula trial gets underway, do you think the state's case will stand or fall on the evidence of its key witness?

[00:35:45]Let me know your thoughts on all of this in the comments section. If you found this breakdown useful, make sure to share this video with as many people as you can. Also, subscribe to the channel, hit that notification bell so that you know when I go live and when I load a video. I am Miss Media and today that's all we have time for. Thank you for watching and I'll see you next time.