Public Protector says it has completed Phala Phala investigation

The Public Protector’s office said it has completed its investigation into the theft of $580 000 in cash from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo.

Phala Phala investigation completed

In a letter addressed to African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyolwethu Zungula on 20 January, Vusumuzi Dlamini, the acting executive manager of the public protector’s investigations branch, said the office’s investigation is finished and an interim report has been drafted.

“Kindly be advised that the investigation into this matter has been completed. The investigation team has already drafted an interim report,” said Dlamini.

The interim report is now set to go through internal review structures for “quality assurance purposes”.

“Once the quality assurance process is completed, the interim report shall then be served to the relevant parties, in line with Rules Relating to Investigations by the Public Protector and Matters Incidental thereto, 2018, as promulgated under Section 7(11) of the Public Protector Act, to allow them to comment on the intended findings before the report is made final,” Dlamini added.

ALSO READ: Phala Phala: ATM goes to court to have Parliament’s open vote declared invalid

Impeachment motion

The ATM is the party that initially filed the Section 89 motion in Parliament in an attempt to have Ramaphosa impeached.

This came after the Section 89 panel found that the president had a case to answer regarding the burglary at Phala Phala.

The majority of members in the National Assembly, however, voted not to adopt the report.

ATM opposing Ramaphosa’s application

Ramaphosa has also asked the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to review and set aside the Phala Phala report.

The ATM is opposing this.

ALSO READ: EFF challenges Parliament’s open vote on Phala Phala, seeks to join Ramaphosa’s litigation

Zungula argued in that the panel’s report was not reviewable because it merely had recommendations, adding that the president’s application did not engage the exclusive jurisdiction of the ConCourt.

“The relief sought by the president in this application impedes Parliament [from] exercising its constitutional functions.

“The president asks this court to set aside a report before Parliament has had an opportunity to consider, deliberate and vote on whether the report should be accepted or rejected. This self-evidently undermines the work of Parliament, and in turn, the separation of powers,” the papers reads.

Additional reporting by Molefe Seeletsa.