Cape Town - The Section 89 panel that ruled there were grounds to impeach President Cyril Ramaphosa over Phala Phala Farmgate, found that the evidence given by Ramaphosa was “hearsay”.
This is after he claimed to “not have personal knowledge of the theft”, but was instead “told of the theft”.
Retired Justice Sandile Ngcobo found that, in response to one of the charges relating to the stolen currency at Phala Phala, Ramaphosa relied on Sylvester Ndlovu’s evidence.
“On this source of the foreign currency, we only have the statement by the president, which is based on what he was told by Mr Ndlovu, who didn’t confirm this information.
It is true the president's version is supported by the acknowledgement of receipt.
“Admittedly, on its face, the acknowledgement of receipt states that Mr Sylvester Ndlovu received a sum of US $580 000 from a Mr Hazim as payment for 20 buffaloes...
“But as we have pointed out earlier, there are a number of important questions relating to this transaction that remain unanswered.
“These questions relate to Mr Hazim’s visit to the farm; the acknowledgement of receipt itself; concealment of the money inside a sofa; and the fact that for over two years, the buffaloes are still on the farm,” the panel found.
On another discrepancy around the stolen currency and how the president had gone about reporting the matter, the panel found that the head of the presidential protection unit (PPU), Major-General Wally Rhoode’s version differed from Ramaphosa’s.
Answering a question in Parliament, Ramaphosa disputed that he abused his power and maintained that when he reported the matter to Rhoode, he believed his duty to report the matter was dealt with.
“As pointed out earlier, the version that General Rhoode was only told of theft of the money in early March is inconsistent with the version given by the president in Parliament and his statement to the panel.
“The president said he was told of the theft by Mr Ndlovu while he was still in Addis Ababa. We are unable to accept that the president would have been told of both the security breach and theft, albeit at different times, while both the president and General Rhoode were in Addis Ababa, and only report the ‘security breach’ to General Rhoode and not the theft,” the report read.
Reacting to the report, opposition parties called for Ramaphosa to be impeached. The ATM said it was vindicated in the findings of the report and Ramaphosa’s continued stay in office was “untenable”.
“(We) are vindicated in holding Ramaphosa accountable in that all four charges laid by the ATM have been confirmed...This therefore means President Ramaphosa has an impeachable case to answer and that there is a green light for the impeachment committee to be established.
“The ATM is also mindful of the outstanding reports of a criminal nature that are still in the pipeline by at least five other agencies, thus making it untenable for (the president) to continue as head of state,” the ATM said.
The EFF urged Ramaphosa to resign.
“The EFF re-affirms that Ramaphosa runs a sophisticated money-laundering operation in which he uses his employees to avoid direct accountability.
“The EFF calls for Ramaphosa to step down as the president and avoid the further placing South Africa in the same ranks of a criminal underworld which launders money, tortures human beings and conceals crimes through thuggery and deceit,” the EFF said in a statement.
Good Party MPL, Brett Herron, said: “While the report of the Independent Panel is not conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the president, it is a massive setback for his and South Africa’s integrity and progress at a time that the country should be focused on the provision of socio-economic and environmental justice…
“Many South Africans invested hope in the promise President Ramaphosa offered of a renewed South African state turning its back on a long period of maladministration and corruption that virtually brought the nation to its knees.”
Cape Times