You’re too late, Cyril tells public protector
President says office has no jurisdiction to probe Phala Phala
President Cyril Ramaphosa has told the public protector that she has no jurisdiction to probe a complaint about the Phala Phala farm scandal because it was laid more than two years after a foreign currency theft took place there.
The office of the public protector is investigating allegations that money was stolen at Ramaphosa’s farm and an attempt was made to conceal it, with the alleged culprits being paid for their silence.
The complaint to the public protector was made by ATM leader Vuyo Zungula after a criminal complaint laid by former spy boss Arthur Fraser in June.
The president also appeared before the ANC’s integrity commission this week, a meeting he described as a “good exchange”.
Ramaphosa’s opponents within the party have used the Phala Phala scandal to argue he should step aside from his position. However, ANC rules state that only those criminally charged should step aside.
The Sunday Times understands that Ramaphosa has argued that acting public protector Kholeka Gcaleka’s office “lacked jurisdiction” to investigate the matter because a two-year period had lapsed. The crime took place on February 9 2019 and Zungula laid the complaint on June 3 2022.
In terms of the Public Protector Act, the public protector can refuse to investigate a matter if the complaint is older than two years. However, it gives the public protector the discretion, “in special circumstances”, to entertain complaints lodged after the twoyear window.
The president is understood to have also told the public protector that the source of the investigation was evidence brought forward by former spy boss Arthur Fraser, which was hearsay.
The president also argued the timing of the complaint was meant to influence the outcome of the ANC national conference, where he will contest for a second term.
Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya declined to comment.
Should the public protector make an adverse finding against the president, it would jeopardise his political future.
Ramaphosa is understood to have given a detailed account to the public protector about the source of the cash and the burglary at his farm. But he has denied breaking the law.
He told Gcaleka that a Sudanese businessman named Mustaf Mohamed Ibrahim Hazim paid $580,000 (R8.1m at the time) to purchase a buffalo bull from his farm on Christmas Day in 2019. The money was received by a staff member because the farm’s general manager, Hendrik von Wielligh, was on holiday. Ramaphosa apparently said he had a receipt for the transaction.
The president said he arrived a day later on December 26 and advised that the money be kept on the farm because he was leaving for Cape Town and Von Wielligh was away. The money would be processed and banked later. A staffer felt it would be dangerous to keep the money in a safe, so stored it in a sofa in a spare room.
The president said it was Von Wielligh who informed him of the burglary while he was in Addis Ababa on February 10 2020. Ramaphosa then informed the head of presidential protection services Wally Rhoode.
The staffer who had received the money then informed the president in February it was missing. Ramaphosa said he informed Rhoode of the theft on March 2 2020. Rhoode subsequently told the president he had been ordered by the late deputy national commissioner, Lt Sindile Mfazi, to investigate the matter.
Ramaphosa denied there was any intention to sweep the crime under the carpet because he reported the matter to a senior police official.
Ramaphosa said the VAT declared to the SA Revenue Service by Ntaba Nyoni — a business entity that runs Phala Phala — also included the money that was stolen.
The president is said to have argued he did not break any law by selling wildlife as this did not constitute a conflict of interest. He had disinvested from businesses that posed a conflict of interest when he became deputy president in 2014. He said he has declared his interest in the farm in parliament and to the secretary to the cabinet.
He also denied that alleged suspects were paid to keep silent, or that he had knowledge of any money that was recovered.