Investigations by various state entities into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal demonstrate why probing matters involving a head of state is near impossible.
Who has the courage to live with the consequences of finding against a sitting president, especially in a politically-polarised environment such as South Africa?
Very few is the answer if one takes seriously the investigations by Sars, the Office of the Public Protector, the South African Reserve Bank, and recently the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and Hawks.
Their findings exonerating Ramaphosa suggest that the report compiled by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo is not worth the paper it’s written on.
Coincidentally the Ngcobo report, which essentially found that Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of his office and may have a case to answer over the undeclared US dollars concealed in a sofa at his farm in Limpopo, was the only document prepared by an independent panel.
That report, which remains unchallenged, was the first among many that were to be released after former State Security Agency head Arthur Fraser lodged a criminal complaint against Ramaphosa.
It came to light that he kept undeclared foreign currency and failed to report a crime when the money was stolen during a “break-in” on his farm. He blamed his head of security for failing to report the crime. He claimed the money was for the sale of animals, which were never delivered or collected by the buyer. The Ngcobo report also raised questions about why no proof of payment existed to record this “transaction” which took place during the busy December holidays in 2020.
Most of the subsequent reports by the aforementioned government entities appear to overlook the serious concerns by the retired chief justice.
If anything they have attempted to cleanse Ramaphosa of the Phala Phala stain that he himself has been unable to remove. The NPA’s decision comes as no surprise if one follows the trend of these state institutions.
We hope that their consistency in absolving Ramaphosa does not suggest an underhand deal as the president’s critics have often claimed.
That would mean their stated independence was nothing more than just a populist rhetoric.
Cape Times