Cyril Ramaphosa’s farm, Phala Phala. (Leon Sadiki)
President Cyril Ramaphosa risks impeachment after a panel chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo found there is evidence suggesting serious wrongdoing in relation to the origin of the money stolen from his farm in February 2020 and the clandestine efforts to recover it.
“We think that the president has a case to answer on the origin of the foreign currency that was stolen, as well as the underlying transaction for it,” a report by the panel published late on Wednesday said.
“There are weighty considerations which leave us in substantial doubt as to whether the stolen foreign currency is the proceeds of sale.”
It said this was “a very serious matter” that, if proven, would leave Ramaphosa in breach of the Constitution and anti-corruption legislation.
The panel, appointed after the African Transformation Movement (ATM) tabled an impeachment motion charging that he broke the law on four counts, rejected much of the submissions Ramaphosa made — and allegedly leaked to the media hours before the release of the report.
The panel concluded that documents handed to it by the ATM and other opposition parties disclosed, prima facie, that the president may have committed serious violations of section 96(2)(a) the Constitution and section 34(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (Precca).
It further pointed to the possibility that there was serious misconduct in the form of behaving in a manner inconsistent with his office and exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business.
The 86-page report examines each of the charges levelled against Ramaphosa in the motion tabled by ATM leader Vuyo Zungula in October.
These included that he performed paid work outside his functions of office, failed to report the burglary to the police and ordered his head of security, Wally Rhoode, to investigate the crime in a covert fashion.
On Ramaphosa’s version, Sudanese businessman Mustafa Mohamed Ibrahim Hazim paid more than half a million US dollars to a lodge manager at his farm in cash for substandard cattle on Christmas Day 2019. The money was put in a safe and later moved to a private room where it was hidden inside a sofa, the president said.
[related_posts_sc article_id=”534036″]
He maintained that he derived no income from the farm, because it ran at a loss, and believed that he had duly reported the burglary by informing Rhoode.
As for the investigation that followed, the president said the submissions made by the ATM and later augmented by information submitted to the panel by the Economic Freedom Fighters and the United Democratic Movement, related to events of which he had no knowledge.
This information included a letter from former State Security Agency boss Arthur Fraser, handed to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks) in late July. In it Fraser alleged the money did not come from livestock sales, but was illegally brought to South Africa by Ramaphosa’s special adviser, Bejani Chauke, from certain Middle East and African countries.
The panel found a number of discrepancies in Ramaphosa’s version of the transaction and called into doubt the origin and the sum of the money stolen.
And it rejected Ramaphosa’s submission that the farm was running at a loss as irrelevant and untested.
“Paid work remains paid work irrespective of whether the entity may be running at a loss. The president has not provided us with any record showing that the business is running at a loss.”
Hence, it said, it was satisfied that the evidence submitted to it pointed, prima facie, to a violation of section 96(2)(a) read with section 83(b) of the Constitution, which would put him in breach of the prohibition on performing other paid work.
“In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the president has a case to answer in relation to charge one.”
Given its limited power, the panel said it was unable to verify Fraser’s allegations, which can only be tested against the president’s version and the probabilities.
The panel noted that Ramaphosa does not have personal knowledge of the source of the $580 000 (about R8.7 million at the time), relying on the account of lodge manager Sylvester Ndlovu as well as the acknowledgement of receipt.
Ndlovu did not make a statement to the panel, a fact the president has failed to explain.
“In these circumstances the evidence of the president must be approached with caution. Indeed, there are troubling unsatisfactory features in the explanation of the source of the foreign currency given by the president,” the panel said.
It also had difficulty accepting that the acknowledgement of receipt was conclusive evidence of the sale. Compounding this doubt, the panel said, was the lack of a firm explanation as to why the money was stored in the sofa and kept there for more than 40 days.
The information presented by Ramaphosa on the storage of the money “is vague and leaves unsettling gaps”, the panel added.
“We are raising these questions because it is not uncommon [sic] for such a huge sum of money in cash to be stuffed inside a sofa and to remain there for more than 40 days without being banked. The normal practice is to bank the money on the next available banking day,” the panel noted.
“These questions must of course be viewed in light of the behaviour of Mr Hazim, who has left his buffaloes on the farm for over two and a half years.”
The fact that the animals were left on the farm, as well as the questionable acknowledgment of receipt “raise substantial doubt about the sale transaction itself”.
There are two individuals who can remove this doubt, Ndlovu and Hazim, the panel said.
“A simple confirmatory affidavit from either of these individuals would have been sufficient to put our minds at rest. There is no explanation as to why these confirmatory statements could not be provided as both Mr Chauke and General Rhoode did.”
“Another troubling feature about the source of the stolen foreign currency,” the panel added, “is that the theft was never reported to the South African Police Services for investigation as an ordinary crime.”
The panel said it was a further problem that an amount stated as US$580 000, but “probably” higher, was not reported to the Hawks, as required by Precca, which makes it an offence not to report theft involving more than R100 000.
“Nor was it reported to any SAPS station as no case was opened or a docket registered for this offence. In our view this information, prima facie, discloses that the president violated section 34(1) read with section 34(2) of Precca.”
This led to the conclusion that the investigation undertaken by Rhoode was intended to remain clandestine.
“Viewed as a whole, the information presented to the panel, prima facie, establishes that: there was a deliberate intention not to investigate the commission of the crimes committed at Phala Phala openly.”
This perception was strengthened by the fact that at least one suspect was detained and confessed to stealing about US$800 000, “yet no one was either convicted of this crime pertaining to the housebreaking and theft at the farm”.
The pane said there was hence a substantial doubt about the legitimacy of the source of the currency that was stolen.
“This is a very serious matter, which, if established, renders the violation of section 96 of the Constitution and Precca, a serious violation, and a serious misconduct.”
The panel dwelled on the detailed allegations that help was covertly enlisted for Rhoode’s investigation at the highest levels in Namibia, where the alleged burglary mastermind was detained.
It concluded that there was also prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa asked for help from his Namibian counterpart, Hage Geingob, to trace the burglary suspects and that Rhoode crossed the border in pursuit of them.
Rhoode has conceded that he travelled to Windhoek with Chauke but claimed he was simply the security detail on the mission and did not know its purpose. The report suggests that the panel did not accept this denial.
“Furthermore, the information before the panel also establishes, prima facie: that the president sought assistance from the president of Namibia in apprehending the suspect who was in Namibia at the time and General Rhoode went to Namibia in the pursuit of the investigations of the house breaking and theft of money.”
It was apparent that the manner in which assistance was sought was aimed at keeping the investigation secret, the panel added.
“The request to the Namibian police to ‘handle the matter with discretion’ confirms this intention.”
The report will be debated by the National Assembly next Tuesday. Members will then vote on whether the president should be subjected to a parliamentary impeachment inquiry in terms of section 89 of the Constitution. A simple majority is needed for a resolution to carry.
Ramaphosa responded by saying the findings merit “careful reading and appropriate consideration in the interest of the stability of government and that of the country”.
It comes less than three weeks before the ANC’s December conference where he is seeking a second term as ruling party president.
Although the parliamentary year is effectively at an end, and any inquiry would have to wait for 2023, the potentially damaging findings will seem an early Christmas gift to his challengers. In the Ramaphosa camp, urgent discussions were underway on Wednesday evening.
[/membership]