Africa-Press – South-Africa. Opposition parties at the forefront of the Phala Phala saga were disgruntled and discontent with the preliminary report’s findings and disappointed that it was “leaked.”
After months of delays and political tension, the Office of the Public Protector officially released the interim report to the Phala Phala investigation.
A report under Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka was distributed to all parties involved, who were then instructed to provide evidence and offer their final input within 10 days, News24 established.
“The report contains a number of inherent contradictions,” said DA leader John Steenhuisen who found the contents concerning.
He said the report did not reflect the complaints lodged and instead displayed Gcaleka’s misunderstanding of “the nature of conflict raised.”
The party leader stated, “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.”
Steenhuisen added that the “leak” of the report, which is yet to be finalised, had been reported as the truth to the public and called President’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya’s dismissal “premature.”
The party will submit their representations to the office to hold Ramaphosa accountable and bring the truth to light.
In response to the Public Protector’s findings, Magwenya said: “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.”
Steenhuisen added that the report revealed “a clear conflict between the findings of the Public Protector and the Section 89 Independent Panel” and called for establishing an ad hoc committee into the Phala Phala matter.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM) was disappointed that the media received the interim report. At the same time, they “received somewhat of [a] threatening letter,” preventing them from commenting on its contents.
ATM spokesperson Zama Ntshona said: “The Act prohibits the ATM from sharing and discussing the contents of the provisional report with parties considered not part of the investigation, the media included, as the act views that as an action that will tamper with the process of the investigation as this is a provisional report.”
“This smacks of a well-orchestrated campaign to favour one side whilst a right of response is denied.”
He confirmed that the party is reviewing the report with its lawyers and will present a formal submission to Gcaleka.
The party filed its complaints last year and wanted the Public Protector’s office to attend to and investigate its issues separately from other matters concerning the case.
In a statement released on Friday, ATM outlined the four Executive Members Ethics Act (EMEA) complaints.
“All other related transgressions are being dealt with by authorities with requisite mandates. The ATM had advised the investigating team of the Deputy Public Protector not to club together EMEA issues with other matters.”
Based on the evidence collected by the independent panel, ATM wanted to know if Ramaphosa was guilty of violating section 96(2), which detailed that cabinet members and deputy ministers could not accept paid work outside of their jurisdiction.
According to the statement, Ramaphosa unlawfully appointed General Wally Rhoode, a member of the Presidential Protection Unit, to investigate the robbery rather than report it and wanted the office to detail if he was guilty of misconduct.
ATM also wanted to know if the President violated the Prevention and Combatting Corruption Activities Act (PRECCA) which holds authorities legally responsible for disclosing and reporting suspicious activity to the police.
Ntshona added: “The ATM would be surprised if the findings of the investigating team of the Deputy Public Protector would be different to the unanimous findings of a panel comprised of a former chief justice, a retired judge, and a senior counsel.”
ATM first approached the Public Protector last year to investigate the scandal after it was unveiled that thousands of dollars were stolen at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s farm in Limpopo.
Last June, its party leader, Vuyolwethu Zungula, lodged a motion in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution for Ramaphosa’s removal days after former spy boss Arthur Fraser laid charges against Ramaphosa.
Since then, the ATM and other opposition parties have been challenging an investigation into the allegations against the President regarding the Phala Phala saga.
In December, the party challenged the President’s application to review the evidence collected by the Section 89 panel and filed papers to the Constitutional Court, maintaining that an independent panel overlooked the report.
In February, the court announced that it dismissed the President’s application to have the panel’s findings into the Phala Phala saga overturned.
The ATM further challenged National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula’s decision to reject a secret ballot vote on the impeachment motion of the President at the Western Cape High Court, which could have charged him.
Responding to Zungula in January, the Public Protector said the interim report was complete. A quality assurance process still had to be done before the final report could be distributed.
On 2 March, Zungula wrote to the office to follow up on the report’s release.
In response to Zungula on 7 March, which News24 has seen, the acting executive manager of the office’s investigations branch, Vusumuzi Dlamini said the interim report was being finalised.
The report was provided on Friday to all involved actors.
The independent Section 89 panel released a report last year that found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have breached anti-corruption laws. The panel also found that Ramaphosa had constitutional questions to answer regarding his actions following the burglary at his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
The DA has since written to Gcaleka to ask that she probe deeper into the Phala Phala scandal after SARS responded to Steenhuisen’s Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request.
SARS found no knowledge or evidence that Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa brought in the $580 000 in cash via OR Tambo Airport to pay to Ramaphosa’s farm.
On Thursday, the acting spokesperson in the office, Ndili Msoki, told News24 that the affidavit from Steenhuisen had been received and that “this aspect has already been considered in our investigation and will be captured in our report.”
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
