- An independent panel delivered a hammer blow to President Cyril Ramaphosa, finding that he has a case to answer for his role in the Phala Phala scandal.
- He could face impeachment of serious misconduct allegations and flouting of anti-corruption laws relating to stacks of US dollars hidden in a couch at his game farm.
- We set out the panel's findings and what happens next.
The independent panel tasked with testing claims of misconduct and violations of corruption legislation levelled against President Cyril Ramaphosa - relating to the Phala Phala theft scandal - found that he has a case to answer.
This is the first step in a process which could see Ramaphosa removed from office.
Central for the panel was the weighing of two versions: dramatic allegations of kidnapping, money laundering and corruption made by controversial former State Security Agency boss Arthur Fraser, and Ramaphosa's denials of wrongdoing.
Fraser registered a criminal case in June, asking police to probe claims that millions of US dollars hidden in a couch at the Limpopo game farm were stolen, and that police top brass launched a cover-up operation to track the thieves and recover the money.
The move by Fraser - allegedly a central actor in state capture who manipulated the State Security Agency for the political protection of Jacob Zuma - set events in motion. This is what the panel found:
Charge 1: Serious misconduct - undertaking paid work while in office
This section of the constitution prohibits cabinet members from undertaking paid work, with this allegation of misconduct centred on Ramaphosa's control and ownership of the company which operates the Phala Phala farm, trading in rare wildlife and livestock.
- Ramaphosa said he does not draw a salary from what is, he claimed, a loss-making business.
- The panel found that Ramaphosa "clears sale transactions, gives instruction on how to manage cash sales, and discuss potential buyers, [which] suggests strongly that he oversees operations in the business".
- Ramaphosa, they held, would be entitled to dividends and he failed to put up any records showing the that the business was running at a loss.
"We are satisfied that the evidence discloses, prima facie, a violation… we are satisfied that the President has a case to answer in relation to Charge 1."
Charge 2: Serious violation of the law - failure to report the theft in terms of anti-corruption legislation
The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA) requires "anyone in authority" with knowledge of a theft of R100 000 or more has a duty to report this to the Hawks.
In his version, Ramaphosa reported the theft to the head of his protection detail, General Wally Rhoode, whom he expected would follow all necessary procedures. The panel found that the matter was never reported to the Hawks or any of their members, and a case was not registered. "We conclude, therefore, that the President has a case to answer," it found.
READ | FIRST TAKE: Phala Phala findings: Ramaphosa's opponents get what they wanted
Charge 3 and 4: Serious misconduct - exposing himself to a conflict of interest and acting in a manner inconsistent with his office
At the heart of this charge are Ramaphosa's actions, in instructing Rhoode to investigate the break-in and theft, instead of reporting the matter to the police.
The conflict arises from instructing the head of the Presidential Protection Unit to investigate the theft of cash from Ramaphosa's private business, when the PPU has no investigative mandate.
The panel, relying on Ramaphosa's own affidavit and statements before Parliament, concluded that he instructed Rhoode to investigate the theft, and not just a "security breach" at the farm.
The panel found that Ramaphosa "thrust himself into a situation where there was a conflict of interest between his official responsibilities as the head of state and as businessperson involved in cattle and game farming; and acted in a manner that was inconsistent with his office."
What next?
Next week, the national assembly will vote on whether or not to pass the report. If passed, then Ramaphosa will face a full-blown impeachment inquiry.
