EDITORIAL | Phala Phala shadow lingers over Ramaphosa as court ruling looms

The Phala Phala scandal refuses to go away. There’s a good reason why. Society expects transparency from the country’s highest office: what transpired at the game farm and what President Cyril Ramaphosa knew and when.

The presidency has so far fallen short on convincing people that the president is an innocent party in the saga and that everything has been above board.

The Constitutional Court’s imminent ruling on parliament’s decision not to adopt a report probing Ramaphosa’s conduct is a welcome development. The judgment has been pending for more than 500 days.

While the Constitutional Court is not going to weigh in on the guilt of the president but rather on the parliamentary process, the judgment is nevertheless an important step forward in trying to resolve the saga, which has clouded the president for more than four years.

The report, produced by a panel chaired by erstwhile chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found Ramaphosa had a case to answer with regard to the break-in and theft of foreign currency from Phala Phala.

The president’s retort was that the panel based its conclusions and recommendations on hearsay evidence given by former State Security Agency head Arthur Fraser, who brought the break-in to the attention of the South African Police Service (SAPS) two years after the event.

Of course, Fraser had his motive in bringing the matter to the public domain. But parliament, by denying itself an opportunity to investigate the allegation and determine the president’s guilt and innocence, has denied the country an opportunity to test Fraser’s allegations.

The apex court has previously not been shy to call out the legislature for unlawfully shielding a sitting head of state from accountability, like it did in the landmark Nkandla judgment. The transparent resolution in the matter will go a long way to reaffirming the age-old principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.

With the country waiting in great anticipation for the ruling, findings by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) on the role of Ramaphosa’s presidential protection service raise further questions.

The Ipid report, made public last week, found senior members of the police attached to Ramaphosa’s protection unit committed many acts of misconduct in their handling of the 2020 theft at the president’s Phala Phala farm.

The findings are contained in a “negative recommendation report” compiled under section 30 of the Ipid Act after a complaint by African Transformation Movement leader Vuyolwethu Zungula.

The investigation focused on the conduct of Maj-Gen Wally Rhoode, head of the presidential protection unit, and others who fell short in their handling of the theft. Ipid found Rhoode failed to register a case of housebreaking and theft after being informed of the incident by the president and did not report the matter to the national police commissioner as required by law.

The report states this constituted a contravention of the SAPS Act, which obliges officers to report prescribed offences to their commanding officers. It concludes that members of the presidential protection unit conducted an unauthorised investigation into the theft. This included the unlawful apprehension and interrogation of suspects and alleged kidnapping incidents linked to the Joseph family in Bela-Bela.

These findings bring into question whether the president’s protectors would have acted in the way they did without his express knowledge. These are the difficult questions that a transparent and investigative platform can answer.

Until then, the Phala Phala scandal will remain a stain on the president’s legacy.