‘Phala Phala videos’ not from Ramaphosa’s farm, says acting public protector

Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka has sought to explain why her office did not make adverse findings against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Phala Phala farm saga.

Ramaphosa has been cleared of wrongdoing in the Public Protector’s final report, which looked into the 9 February 2020 burglary at the president’s farm in Waterberg, Limpopo.

The investigation was lodged in June last year, after it emerged that $580 000 was stolen from Phala Phala farm when former State Security Agency (SSA) director-general, Arthur Fraser, reported the matter to the police.

In his affidavit, Fraser stated that Ramaphosa concealed the theft and accused the president of breaching the law by not reporting the crime.

He also alleged that, among other things, the president’s head of security, Wally Rhoode, and his advisor ,Bejani Chauke, were involved in the alleged cover-up of the incident and unlawfully entered Namibia to pursue the suspects behind the crime.

‘Hearsay’

Gcaleka found in the Phala Phala final report that there was no basis to conclude that Ramaphosa had breached the Ethics Code as there was also no conflict between the president and his private interest on the farm.

“It could not have been remunerative work because he is a director of the company [that manages Phala Phala farm]. He is not employed by that company nor is he doing day-to-day work, but rather he has got financial interests and the complain was not about financial interests in any effect,” said the acting public protector during a media briefing on Friday.

She explained that if the Public Protector’s Office went into Ramaphosa’s bank accounts, they would be doing what the court reprimanded the institution about in the CR17 investigation.

She also said Fraser’s allegations that the president had authorised the police to unlawful apprehend the criminals was unsubstantiated.

ALSO READ: ‘Ramaphosa is not corrupt’ – Motion to establish ad-hoc committee to probe Phala Phala rejected

It was found that Ramaphosa reported the security breach at the farm to Rhoode a day after the incident, although a case of housebreaking and theft was only opened with the police in August 2022.

In addition, Gcaleka revealed that the infamous 31 questions suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane sent to Ramaphosa were based on “hearsay allegations”.

The acting public protector pointed out that Fraser refused to disclose his sources.

“Most of the evidence could not be followed up on because the sources were not provided and we [investigated] without establishing who those sources are.

“Furthermore, the information was contradicted by actual evidence because the investigators went and did an inspection at Phala Phala and found the videos and pictures that were perpetuated to depicting the Phala Phala house of the president were in fact not the house of the president, but of the neighbouring farms,” she said.

She further said there needed to be substantial evidence for the Public Protector’s Office to make a finding because the office’s remedial action was binding.

“It can’t just be on the basis of what one thinks could have happened.”

The political noose is tightening around @CyrilRamaphosa, with opposition parties demanding answers over an alleged cover-up of a robbery at his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in 2020. The EFF released this never before seen footage at a press briefing on Tuesday. pic.twitter.com/T5bDCGmSEg

— AlgoaFMNews (@AlgoaFMNews) June 7, 2022

Namibia trip

Meanwhile, acting executive manager in the Public Protector’s Office, Vusumuzi Dlamini, said it was found during the investigation that Rhoode and Chauke’s trip to Namibia was purely based on security reasons.

Based on the evidence received, Dlamini also highlighted that it was clear the suspect arrested in Namibia was nabbed for illegal border crossing rather than the Phala Phala incident.

RELATED: Phala Phala farm theft: Lamola was ‘in the dark’ about Namibia’s request

He also said the State Security Agency (SSA) was aware of the trip.

“It was a security related trip which Bejani Chauke had to take in his capacity as the special advisor to the president and the presidential envoy to Africa. We could not probe further as to the nature of the security nature that it was involved because then that would have been a confidential issue,” Dlamini added.

“On that basis, we are not able to draw any link or nexus between the trip to Namibia and the suspect that was arrested,” he said.

Section 89 panel

Regarding the contradictory conclusions between the Section 89 panel and the public protector, it was explained that the Chapter 9 Institution cannot accept another body’s findings as evidence.

“The findings of the Section 89 panel didn’t have any probative value around the same issues that the public protector is required to investigate in terms of the Constitution,” senior legal services manager at the Public Protector’s office,” Neels van der Merwe said.

Gcaleka added that the panel’s powers were very limited.

“It was never intended that the panel should make a finding on whether the president is in fact guilty of any of the acts listed in Section 89. Therefore, the powers, jurisdiction and mandate in this instance is purely quite different,” she said.

READ MORE: Opposition calls on NPA to charge Ramaphosa over Phala Phala saga

The panel, led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, had concluded in its report – released in November last year – that Ramaphosa may have a case to answer regarding Phala Phala.

It also found that the president may have violated the Constitution and anti-corruption laws.

However, the panel’s report was rejected after the African National Congress (ANC) used its majority in Parliament to vote against its adoption.

Ramaphosa has since dropped his litigation against the report as there was no basis to continue with the legal challenge because the matter was “moot”.