Phala Phala robbers finally arrested; Public Protector insists on shielding President from consequences

While the burglars who took the undeclared cash from the President's furniture stuffing head for court, state institutions double down on clearing him of wrongdoing

Newsroom

By 

Newsroom

Published 

November 7, 2023

Phala Phala robbers finally arrested; Public Protector insists on shielding President from consequences

In the latest on the Phala Phala scandal, two of the three alleged burglars responsible for removing the infamous stash of undeclared cash from Ramaphosa’s furniture have finally been arrested, facing charges in court of housebreaking and theft.

This follows accusations of a Presidential coverup; that Cyril Ramaphosa chose to hide the crime to protect himself from the discovery of illicit funds, involving President Geingob of Namibia in the effort to keep the people caught on the scene from being processed by the police.

The Public Protector found that Ramaphosa "may have committed" serious violations and misconduct in handling the matter, but insisted his actions, which included authorising security to take the burglars into secret custody, was neither an abuse of constitutional power nor an impeachable offence.

The scandal arose in June 2022 when the former national intelligence agency boss Arthur Fraser filed a complaint against Ramaphosa, raising suspicions of money-laundering and corruption. At the time, he was accused of being motivated by partisan politics, due to his relations with the Zuma faction in the ruling party.

Ramaphosa admitted that cash was stolen but claimed it was payment for buffaloes bought by a Sudanese businessman, Hazim Mustafa. Mustafa gave $580,000 in cash to President Cyril Ramaphosa's Ntaba Nyoni Estate as a deposit for 20 buffalo, which he never collected.

The South African Reserve Bank (SARB) found that since the transaction was not "perfected", there was no obligation to declare the foreign currency. SARB cleared Ramaphosa of exchange control violations but noted inconsistencies in Mustafa's statements.

This peculiar administrative feature could likely provide a significant loophole for the laundering and off-booking of political bribery.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) disputes SARB's findings and seeks a new determination, hopefully a guilty verdict. SARB accepts that the deposit was not a final purchase price and that the sale had conditions precedent. Inconsistencies in Mustafa's statements regarding logistics and his knowledge of the farm ownership were noted. SARB's report is part of a Rule 53 (non-confidential) record in response to the DA's legal challenge.

From the conclusion to the report:

"Based on the information available to FinSurv [Financial Surveillance], as set forth above, as well as that the sale was subject to conditions precedent, FinSurv is of the considered view that the transaction was not a perfected transaction which gave rise to a legal entitlement by Ntaba Nyoni Estates CC to the foreign currency […] It appears from the facts available to FinSurv (as related to exchange controls) and which have not been contradicted by any other evidence which is available to FinSurv, that the obligation under Exchange Control Regulation 6(1) was not triggered on the part of Ntaba Nyoni Estates CC upon receipt of the foreign currency from Mr Hazim. In these circumstances there would not be a breach of Exchange Control Regulation 6(1) by Ntaba Nyoni Estates CC."

The New Public Protector appears as dedicated to defending the President against consequences as the previous one. Kholeka Gcaleka will oppose the Hola Bon Renaissance (HBR) Foundation's legal challenge against her Phala Phala report exonerating President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The foundation argues that the theft at Ramaphosa's farm does not involve state affairs or public administration, and is consequently an ordinary criminal matter. Gcaleka's report cleared Ramaphosa of violating the executive ethics code and abuse of power related to the theft of $580,000, and HBR contends that this is an inappropriate way of shielding the President from accountability.

The foundation claims Gcaleka didn't consider a section 89 panel report and failed to address the term "paid work," in the context of the transfer of cash. Gcaleka has defended her report, citing the SA Reserve Bank's findings that there was no concluded sale between the buyer and seller. Political analysts raise concerns about a perception of impropriety and bias in Gcaleka's appointment.

more articles by this author