My point was that we assert that someone's actions were criminal after the facts are presented at trial, not before. That is, unless we personally witnessed th

My point was that we assert that someone's actions were criminal after the facts are presented at trial, not before. That is, unless we personally witnessed the act and are in possession of the facts. I didn't happen to be in Zimbabwe at the time, I haven't inspected the licenses and other relevant paperwork, and I'm not familiar with Zimbabwe's laws (but, realistically, I'm skeptical that they're properly enforced and that the judiciary is independent and professional). I'm certainly not going to substitute whatever partial/exaggerated/fabricated tales the media choose to present for those facts. Saying that someone committed a crime is a Big Deal. In many jurisdictions, it is considered slander or libel unless you are making a formal charge. You need something a lot stronger than something you read in a newspaper to back it up.