In a recently released report by the Public Protector, it was determined that President Cyril Ramaphosa did not violate the Executive Ethics Code in relation to the Phala Phala “farmgate” scandal.
Public Protector clears Ramaphosa in Phala Phala saga – Here’s why
Acting Public Protector Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka made the announcement on Friday, stating that the allegations against the President were not substantiated.
“THE THEFT OF MILLIONS ON PHALA PHALA FARM WAS A PRIVATE MATTER“
The investigation centred around whether Ramaphosa had breached the code following the theft of millions of US dollars from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo on February 9, 2020.
The complaint was initially lodged by Vuyo Zungula, the leader of the African Transformation Movement after a criminal complaint had been filed by former spy boss Arthur Fraser.
Gcaleka’s investigation revealed that the Phala Phala farm is managed by Ntaba Nyoni Close Corporation on land owned by the Tshivhase Trust.
The evidence and information collected indicated that the stolen funds were a result of a private cash transaction between private parties. The report clarified that Ramaphosa was not present at the farm during the transaction and did not play any role in the sale.
“NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN RAMAPHOSA’S LINKS TO NTABA NYONI”
During the investigation, the team inspected Ramaphosa’s register of financial interests and found that he had declared no remuneration other than his executive member salary during the reporting period.
It was also discovered that Ramaphosa retained a financial interest as a member of Ntaba Nyoni but was not actively involved in its day-to-day operations.
The report concluded that Ramaphosa’s financial interest in the game and cattle farming operation did not give rise to a conflict of interest or expose him to any situation that compromised his official responsibilities.
“IT WAS NOT RAMAPHOSA’S RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT THE PHALA PHALA SAGA“
Additionally, the allegation that he failed to report the crime and abused his power by deploying the Presidential Protection Services to investigate the theft was deemed unsubstantiated.
The Public Protector’s investigation did not find any evidence supporting the claim that Ramaphosa received remuneration or engaged in paid work at the farm while in office.
Furthermore, it stated that as the President was not the sole director of the company, he was not solely responsible for reporting the crime.
In light of the findings, Gcaleka concluded that Ramaphosa had followed the appropriate channels to report the robbery, and the deployment of Presidential Protection Services officers to his private residence did not constitute an abuse of power.
The report ultimately cleared Ramaphosa of any improper actions, in line with the standards set by the Executive Ethics Code.