ƒƒ’Š‘•ƒ ‹’‡ƒ…Š‡– ‘–‹‘
independent panel. ATM leader Vuyo Zungula welcomed the fact that Nqakula had started the process in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution to remove Ramaphosa for violating the Constitution. The motion to impeach Ramaphosa was in relation to the theft of around US$4 million at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in February 2020 which was concealed from law enforcement.
“Noting that the affidavit of Arthur Fraser, contained a lot of prima facie evidence by way of videos, bank statements and photographs of people with hands tied behind their backs, foreign currency, to corroborate serious allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, violation of foreign exchange regulations, flouting of immigration laws, the ATM focused on only those offences where the evidence has either not been disputed or is rather indisputable,” Zungula said.
He said Ramaphosa had violated the Constitution by doing paid work despite being prohibited to do so as a member of
the Cabinet, was conflicted between his official duty versus his private interests, and gave an unlawful instruction to the head of the Protection Unit to investigate a burglary instead of instructing him to report the matter at the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks) as required by law. Ramaphosa also violated the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act which enjoined everyone to report theft or corruption where the amount exceeded R100 000. “People don’t like being held accountable. If you hold public office, you will be held accountable,” he said.