A preliminary report by acting Public Protector Advocate Kholeka Gcoleka has found claims that President Cyril Ramaphosa failed to report the theft of $580 000 in cash and abused his power in utilising state resources to investigate the housebreaking at the Phala Phala rarm in 2020 were unfounded.
The report indicates that the Public Protector could not find any evidence to conclude that Ramaphosa's deployment of Presidential Protection Services at his private residence amounts to an abuse of SAPS resources. Acting spokesperson in the PP's office Ndili Msoki said: "The Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) confirms that on 10 March 2023, a notice in terms of section 7(9) of the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 read with Rule 42(1) and 41(1) of the Rules Relating to Investigations by the Public Protector and Matters Incidental Thereto, 2018, as amended, was delivered to the affected and implicated persons in the Phala-Phala farm investigation. The notice encloses the preliminary findings of the Public Protector and provides recipients with an opportunity to respond to the Public Protector's preliminary findings. The affected and implicated persons have been afforded 10 calendar days to make representations to the Public Protector.'
DA'S COMPLAINT MISUNDERSTOOD
The DA's John Steenhuisen says the Public Protector's preliminary report reflects worrying misunderstanding of the DA's complaint. He said the DA has noted the release of the Public Protector's preliminary report into allegations of a potential violation of the Executive Ethics Code by President Cyril Ramaphosa pertaining to an act of theft at his Phala Phala game farm in February 2020. He said it appears that the content of the report was leaked. "This is highly unfortunate as the preliminary findings, which have yet to be finalised, are now being reported as truth. It is thus premature of the Presidency to dismiss the matter as the investigation is as yet unfinished. Our initial analysis of the preliminary report is concerning. The report contains a number of inherent contradictions, and the Public Protector has outsourced much of the investigatory work to the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) where it will be cloaked in secrecy. None of this provides the necessary transparency and accountability to the Republic to conduct oversight over its President." Steenhuisen said.
He said they believe that the Public Protector has misunderstood the nature of the conflict of interest raised and has thus compiled a preliminary report which is not congruent with, or reflective of, the complaint which was lodged. "The DA will be studying the preliminary findings of the report to compile and submit our representations to the Public Protector, and will communicate on these submissions in due course. What this means for South Africans is that the water of truth is being muddied and that we are no closer to getting to the bottom of this debacle. This gives credence to the DA's repeated calls for the establishment of an ad hoc committee into the Phala Phala matter so that members of parliament can be allowed to do their job of arriving at the full, unredacted truth."
MAINTAINING INNOCENCE
In a statement on Saturday, the Presidency acknowledged the Public Protector's preliminary report on the investigation of whether the President breached the executive ethics code with respect to the Phala Phala matter. "The Presidency is in receipt of the Public Protector's preliminary report on the investigation of whether the President breached the executive ethics code with respect to the Phala Phala matter. We note the report. As stated before, we reiterate that the President did not participate in any wrongdoing, nor did he violate the oath of his office. Instead, the President was a victim of a crime that he duly reported to the relevant authorities,' the statement said.
It emerged last week that the millions in cash that were stolen Phala Phala farm hidden inside a couch were never declared with the South African Revenue Services.
