Acting public protector Kholeka Gcaleka’s preliminary report apparently clearing President Cyril Ramaphosa of any wrongdoing over the farmgate scandal has ignited a political storm, with the DA and EFF being among the first to poke holes in it.
Cape Town - Acting public protector Kholeka Gcaleka’s preliminary report apparently clearing President Cyril Ramaphosa of any wrongdoing over the farmgate scandal has ignited a political storm, with the DA and EFF being among the first to poke holes in it.
In the leaked report, Gcaleka has instead found that the head of presidential protection services, General Wally Rhoode, and others have a case to answer.
“The allegation that the president improperly and in violation of the provisions of the executive ethics code exposed himself to any risk of a conflict between his constitutional duties and obligations and his private interests arising from or affected by his alleged paid work in Phala farm is not substantiated,” states the preliminary report.
Gcaleka’s office has taken about nine months to reach this point after a complaint was lodged with the public protector’s office following allegations by former State Security boss Arthur Fraser against Ramaphosa in June last year, implicating the president in money laundering, kidnapping and torture.
He claimed that Ramaphosa may have been involved in the cover-up of a crime that took place on his property after a group of about five men, mostly from Namibia, allegedly working with his domestic worker, stole money in US dollars that was concealed in couches in the residence on the farm.
While no police case was opened, Ramaphosa claimed he had informed Rhoode of the break-in.
The suspects were traced using a bogus drug case and located in Milnerton, where they were said to have been transported to the farm to be interrogated.
Fraser claimed they were paid for their silence, having been kidnapped and tortured.
A parliamentary panel of experts has already found that Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of office, but that report was shot down and prevented from being adopted after the ANC used its majority to vote against it.
Ramaphosa suspended public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane a day after she sent him more than 30 questions, after a complaint was lodged with the Chapter 9 institution.
Two MPs had approached her office asking her to investigate allegations the president had violated the executive ethics code, as well as claims of improper conduct by members of the SAPS.
While he could not comment on the preliminary report’s findings, as complainants have been given 10 days to respond to them, the African Transformation Movement’s Vuyo Zungula said: “The independent panel found there is a case to answer regarding paid work, abuse of authority, and risk of a conflict of interest. The wisdom of an experienced former chief justice and retired judge is to be noted.
“Also, the independent panel have no interest in growing their careers or aligning to the political powers that be. Hence their work is based on the law only, whereas other people heading the (Chapter 9) institutions have career prospects that conflate (with) their work.”
DA leader John Steenhuisen, who is also a complainant, said their initial analysis of the preliminary report was “concerning”.
“The report contains a number of inherent contradictions, and the public protector has outsourced much of the investigatory work to (the SA Revenue Service)and the (SA Reserve Bank), 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.
We also 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,” said Steenhuisen.
The EFF said: “Gcaleka deliberately utilises the scapegoat of Cyril Ramaphosa and accredits the misuse of SAPS resources to General Wally Rhoode, as if he has the ability to operate outside of the directives of his principle with regard to conducting a rogue investigation to recover the money stolen at Phala Phala farm.
“It is not feasible that Rhoode would conduct a full-on investigation into the matter without the direct oversight of the president himself.
The so-called report compiled by Gcaleka is therefore nothing but an affirmation of the distortions that Cyril Ramaphosa has uttered on public platforms to avoid accountability,” the EFF said.
The Presidency noted the report, maintaining Ramaphosa did nothing wrong.
“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.”
Meanwhile, Gcaleka has warned opposition and other interested parties against divulging the contents of her preliminary report.
In a letter, the office of the public protector said public consumption of the report remained prohibited and it would only be subject to such scrutiny once the implicated persons had been given an opportunity to study it and make representations.
“The notice remains prohibited for public consumption under section 7(2) of the Public Protector Act, which prohibits the disclosure, by any person, of the contents of any document or record of any evidence given before the public protector or deputy public protector during an investigation.
“Once the affected and implicated persons have submitted representations to the public protector, such representations will be considered and a final report will be produced and published.”
Professor Zwelinzima Ndevu of Stellenbosch University’s School of Public Leadership said: “The question we should be asking is whether a person who holds the position of president should set standards of his actions based on the law only, or should an ethical and moral barometer be set at a higher level.
“While, legally, the president has violated no law, is it morally and ethically acceptable to conduct private business while serving in the highest office in the Republic?
“I think it is best to say it is wrong to do that, as it is an indirect conflict of interest, whether one likes it or not.”
Cape Times