On reading President Cyril Ramaphosa’s responses to the revelations by former spy boss Arthur Fraser about the robbery at the president’s farm, it’s clear that the president has a far more serious case to answer. This relates to his potential breach of the constitution, and his 2014 promise to South Africans that he would build a high Chinese wall between himself and his business interests.
It appears that Ramaphosa has continued to be involved in the running of Phala Phala, the farming enterprise he sometimes visits. This was where the robbery took place in February 2020, a crime that for reasons the president has yet to explain was not reported to the local police. Instead, the farm manager reported it to Ramaphosa, who asked the head of the Presidential Protection Unit to investigate.
In responding to Fraser’s revelations, Ramaphosa does not reveal the outcome of the investigation. He also disputes the amount of $4m Fraser alleges was stolen, but will not provide the correct figure. The Sunday Times quoted his spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, as saying, “The process to verify the exact amount based on sales during the period is under way”.
Ramaphosa’s involvement in the affairs of Phala Phala would be in breach of a promise he made as deputy president in a media statement of November 26 2014: “Deputy president Ramaphosa’s remaining business interests, all in ‘unregulated’ sectors, are being placed in a trust managed by independent and professional people. The deputy president will not give any instructions with respect to the management of these interests for the duration of his term in office, save for the purposes of complying with a legal requirement or to give instructions to sell such interest,” the statement reads.
On any interpretation of the exceptions allowing him to scale the Chinese wall, the Phala Phala robbery does not qualify as meeting a business legal requirement. Ramaphosa may argue that the robbery was investigated by his protection unit because he spends time there — meaning Phala Phala is one of his residences. That may be the case, but Phala Phala is a business enterprise, which means any state protection of the farm as a place the president sometimes visits amounts to protection of his business enterprise. The key question is whether it is a residence more than it is a business enterprise. Ramaphosa’s tax filings for Phala Phala would provide clarity.
Wildlife auctions
Which brings me to section 96 of the constitution, which deals with the conduct of members of the cabinet and deputy ministers, as well as the Constitutional Court ruling on what has become known as “the Nkandla case”. Section 96(2) states that cabinet members and deputy ministers may not, “(b) act in any way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and private interests; or (c) use their position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person.”
In the Nkandla judgment the Constitutional Court provided clarity on section 96(2): “To find oneself on the wrong side of section 96 all that needs to be proven is a risk. It does not even have to materialise.” And Ramaphosa has been skating on thin ice for some time. He has been showing up at wildlife auctions for years. Has he been attending as a guest or a participant, there to buy and sell wildlife on behalf of his farms? Even if he has not been a participant, has he been giving “counsel” to his farm managers on sales and purchases?
Ramaphosa’s actions in response to the robbery would suggest he has been scaling the Chinese wall. Otherwise, why would the manager of Phala Phala — who has all the powers to make decisions about the daily business of the farm — decide not to report the robbery immediately to the local police station but instead reach out to Ramaphosa, who was out of the country?
Ramaphosa’s 2014 promises were that he was placing his businesses in the hands of professional and independent managers to avoid the risk of a conflict between his official duties, then as deputy president, and his private interests. Those duties have multiplied several times since he became president, which means a far higher risk of a conflict between his business interests and his duties as the president. The Phala Phala robbery has laid bare that conflict as well as how low Ramaphosa’s Chinese wall actually is.
• Sikhakhane, a former spokesperson for the finance minister, National Treasury and SA Reserve Bank, is editor of The Conversation Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
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.