'Don't jump the gun on Phala Phala, let processes unfold': Corruption Watch

Corruption Watch (CW) says the finding that President Cyril Ramaphosa has a prima facie case to answer on the origin of foreign currency stolen at his Phala Phala farm, as well as the underlying transaction, is good for democracy.

This after an independent panel commissioned by parliament presented its report on Wednesday.

But CW director Karam Singh warned against a hasty reaction.

LISTEN | Phala phala report and its significance

“It’s significant that parliament decided to go this route, that there is a finding he has a case to answer. It’s a preliminary step in the process — one would like to see that process play out, including the president giving his side of the story,” he said.

“There are so many unanswered questions. We haven’t seen the evidence. I would have been surprised if the panel said there wasn’t a prima facie case to answer.

“There are possibly people in civil society saying he should resign. It’s premature to expect him to resign. The processes need to play out.”

It was alleged that a Sudanese businessman, Mustafa Mohamed Ibrahim Hazim, went to the farm to view buffalo for sale and made a cash payment of $580,000 (R10m).  

Questions arise about the money Hazim allegedly had. How did he bring the cash into South Africa? Was it declared upon entry? Why was it “concealed” or “stored” in a sofa and not banked before being stolen?

“It is difficult to understand that a foreigner carrying $580,000 could randomly come on Christmas Day without making prior arrangements,” the report said.

“We would expect that Hazim would have made arrangements with the GM or the president to view the animals; the farm would make arrangements for someone with knowledge of buffalo to receive Hazim and show him the animals and negotiate the price and conclude the transaction.

“Yet [allegedly] no such arrangements were made and he was met by a lodge manager whose expertise in buffalo is not known. It is not clear to us how Mr Ndlovu knew what buffalo to sell and at what price.”

In a country where corruption and impunity was endemic, it was worrying that a president, a person in a critical position, would be the subject of questionable business practice, CW said.

“It remains to be seen what the consequences are. This is a case about a president who has [a] private business interest that engage[s] in transactions that are suspicious. It should raise concerns in terms of issues like money laundering, but he should be given an opportunity to defend himself,” said Singh.

This might trigger an impeachment process but Ramaphosa should not be silenced or pushed out, he said.

“If he were to step aside within the context that he acknowledges he is potentially involved in unlawful conduct, it means he’s unable to [uphold] his oath of office. I accept the outcome as it’s from a legitimate process.”

Civil society organisation Defend our Democracy welcomed the report. “This is an important step in ensuring democratic accountability for a person in high office. We welcome the institutionalising of all processes which act to strengthen South Africa’s constitutional democracy, including an impeachment process,” said spokesperson Nonkululeko Mntambo.

“This process is triggered by a section 89 motion, which means that it requires an objective preliminary assessment of whether a president has committed a serious violation of the law, serious misconduct or suffers from inability to perform the functions of office.”

TimesLIVE

Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.