Has Arthur Fraser, one of the country’s most controversial practitioners of espionage, set the stage for the eventual removal of President Cyril Ramaphosa — or is he simply a spy under siege, firing hot air?
Fraser this week set the proverbial cat (not quite David Mabuza) among the pigeons when he revealed that there was a $4m (R60m) cash heist at Ramaphosa’s Limpopo farm, Phala Phala, orchestrated by petty thieves and his domestic worker. It was not so much dramatic simply because the idea of a helper staging an Oceans 11 robbery against a president is jaw-dropping, but more so for the political implications.
Flowing from Fraser’s much-circulated statement, police have confirmed that they are investigating a “case of money laundering, defeating the ends of justice and kidnapping” opened by Fraser against Ramaphosa.
Ramaphosa on Thursday told us the theft did occur — but there was no criminality on his part.
This episode is a nightmare for Ramaphosa, regardless of whether he survives it or not. How do you, as a president, keep $4m in your house? At a dollar rand exchange rate of R15, this is over R60m in cash. He says that the loot is from selling game at auctions. Which auction is this that gets him only dollars in cash? Did it happen out of the country and why were the proceeds not declared on return but taken to a farm in Limpopo? If the petty thieves from a squatter camp who robbed our president had time to hatch their plan with the helper, this suggests that he must have had the funds at home for a while. How long, Mr President? As a former board member of a bank, is it that hard to trust the bank?
There’s a saying that you don’t aim at the king and miss. So Fraser had better have made sure before making the claims that Ramaphosa was personally involved in the saga.
But also, why keep such a robbery secret? His explanation that he did not want to cause alarm among the farming community makes no sense. It means he believes farmers, like him, must just be attacked in silence in the hope that such silence will make the attacks go away. How ludicrous! Further, he claims his presidential protection unit (PPU) head reported the matter to the police. This is hard to believe at this point without a case number. Why have the police not said anything? Were they instructed not to?
For someone preaching transparency and good governance, the president’s alleged conduct beggars belief. If you consider too that Ramaphosa claims to have reported the matter not at a police station but to the head of the PPU for investigation, our eyebrows must be raised. The PPU is manned by police bodyguards. Since when do they investigate theft? Was Ramaphosa simply unaware of what happened after leaving the matter with his bodyguards? A contact asked me yesterday: “Do you want to tell me that your bodyguards can just go into a squatter camp and arrest people and bring them, kicking and screaming, to your house for interrogation without your knowledge or permission? CR should be a little more imaginative in his spin.”
And if, as appears, it’s the bodyguards who did the arresting, interrogation and then the payments of bribes for the suspects to keep quiet, there are, literally, innumerable cases listed here. You need a case number to take people against their will. Otherwise, it is abduction or kidnapping, as Fraser claims.
If Ramaphosa releases the case number and/or proves that the case was indeed opened, this tilts, a little bit, the scale against Fraser. It will create doubt about the superspy’s precision. We will wonder how he missed the existence of the case. What else did he miss, we will ask? Do the photos and videos exist — and why not be open with the nation about what you know? Is the curt statement meant to stir political upheaval rather than reveal Ramaphosa’s criminality?
There’s a saying that you don’t aim at the king and miss. So Fraser had better have made sure before making the claims that Ramaphosa was personally involved in the saga. If not, he will go down in history as a bitter old servant of Jacob Zuma who, in desperation, tried to pull the president down and failed.
But assuming that the evidence exists and proves Ramaphosa’s complicity in crimes, this will be a perfect present for the broad church that is the Radical Economic Transformation (RET) faction of the ANC and opposition parties.
A Ramaphosa forced to step aside might be a great gift to his opponents. It might mean that David Mabuza, yes, him, becomes the ANC’s acting president. In the same way that ANC leaders were forced to step aside from their government responsibilities, Ramaphosa too might. Should this happen, it’s game over. And the ANC will implode on its way to its December elective conference.
If the idea of a Mabuza presidency gives you the chills, you’re not alone. This is why so many others within the ANC are contesting that position. At its basic level, it means the ANC is not agreed on who is most appropriate to lead it after Ramaphosa. Even his opponents don’t have a key figure around whom they’re organising.
But that aside, it is still a long way before Ramaphosa steps aside, it appears. The only way to expedite this is if Fraser releases the evidence he claims he has against Ramaphosa.
If Ramaphosa is going to step aside, Fraser will need to do more than tease us with potential complicity.
The smoke and mirrors he’s used to will not work. More so because of his background. The Sydney Mufamadi report into the chaos and directionlessness of our intelligence community, which appear to have been deliberately engineered to encourage fraud and corruption, casts Fraser is a very dark light. The testimony of former spy chief Loyiso Jafta at the state capture commission places Fraser at the centre of a massive corruption scheme involving the looting of funds from the SSA’s slush fund. It was under Fraser’s leadership, Jafta told us, that R2.4m was taken from the slush fund for Zuma, who, unsurprisingly, has not received it. It was Fraser’s SSA that helped Zuma get what is referred to as “spy tapes”, which got him off the arms deal charges for years — charges he’s only now facing in the Pietermaritzburg high court. This why Fraser must lay all his cards on the table if he wishes to be believed.
And if he simply tells us that he has submitted the evidence to the police and he is not willing to reveal “the videos, photos” that prove Ramaphosa’s criminality publicly, then he and his RET friends must know that the National Prosecuting Authority and the police led by Bheki Cele and a police commissioner he is happy with, will take more than six months before making a decision to charge or not. And that six months will mean that Ramaphosa has won the ANC battles for a second term. And this case will be dead in the water until Ramaphosa leaves office, assuming he wins the general elections in 2024, in 2029.
The ball, so to speak, is in Fraser’s court — if he’d play it. This is not a striptease, Mr Fraser, do come forth with evidence. Or sit down.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.