Acting public protector Kholeka Gcaleka — criticised by opposition parties for her “nonsensical” report on Phala Phala absolving President Cyril Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in the robbery at his Limpopo game farm — has attempted to explain why her findings are at odds with those of the section 89 panel that found the president had a case to answer.
Gcaleka released the final report on the matter at a media briefing on Friday, where she said her investigation team found allegations of a potential violation of the executive ethics code by Ramaphosa related to the theft to be “unsubstantiated”.
She said Ramaphosa had stated that he did not work for Phala Phala or receive any remuneration from the game farm’s operations.
“Our investigation was whether the president performed remunerative work in respect of Phala Phala, and through the evidence that was before us, and through the legal prescripts that we evaluated, we found that it is, indeed, not so,” said Gcaleka.
The investigation found there was a “manager running the day-to-day [operations] of Phala Phala”, said Gcaleka.
The investigating team also found Ramaphosa did declare his financial interest in Phala Phala, but “there is no conclusive evidence he was involved in the day-to-day work” of the farm, Gcaleka said.
The findings contradict those made by an independent panel on November 30 2022, which found that Ramaphosa may have broken some of SA’s anticorruption laws in connection with the theft of a large sum of dollars from his game farm in late 2020.
The panel found that Ramaphosa may be “guilty of serious violation of section 96(2)(a) of the constitution” through the active running of his farming business. This section provides that cabinet members and deputy ministers may not undertake any other paid work.
Responding to questions from journalists at the media briefing on Friday to explain and “simplify” the contradictions between her findings and those by the section 89 panel, Gcaleka said the independent panel was not mandated to investigate the matter “fully”.
“Their mandate is a preliminary enquiry. Therefore, they did not summon persons to give evidence before it or produce documents or hold public enquiries or any other elaborative collection of information as opposed to what the office of the public protector has done,” she said.
“Theirs was to say whether there’s a preliminary case for the president to answer. And then the impeachment enquiry is the one that does the full scale investigation, probably close to what we would have done. At this stage no impeachment enquiry has set to do that full scale enquiry.”
The acting public protector took potshots at the section 89 panel, saying the scope of its powers was “very limited as it lacked the power to test the reliability of information placed before it, in particular the absence of the power to hear evidence from persons or institutions that might have information relevant to the removal of the president from office”.
“In a nutshell: it was never intended that the panel should make a finding on whether the president is in fact guilty of [contravening the constitution],” said Gcaleka.
The EFF said it rejected Gcaleka’s “nonsensical and illogical report” on Phala Phala, and that it was not worth the paper it’s written on. The red berets called for the report to be rejected by all “sound-minded and objective South Africans. Her findings are at odds with the basic prescripts of governance, law and logic.
“The EFF will convene with our legal team to weigh available options, including, but not limited to, a review of the report.”
Legal expert advocate Mike Hellens said Gcaleka’s findings were not cast in stone and could be “reviewed by the high court if she made errors”.
Update: July 2 2023
This article has been updated with new information throughout.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.