Ramaphosa gets free pass on Phala Phala forex farm theft as Parliament ‘enters the twilight zone’

When National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula cited the precedent of a previous incomplete question and answer session, it was with reference to the August 2014 “Pay back the money” Q&A with then president Jacob Zuma.

That’s a similarity unlikely to sit easily with President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has styled his administration as one eradicating corruption and State Capture and upholding the rule of law and constitutional values.

But the February 2020 theft of US dollars stuffed into sofa cushions on his private Limpopo farm to which South Africa was alerted when ex-spy boss and Zuma ally Arthur Fraser reported it to the police in June, has cast a long shadow.

Ramaphosa has confirmed the theft, but has remained schtum on details, citing due process.  

That was the case after a bruising Presidency Budget vote debate in June and again some two weeks later during a Q&A slot. And again on Tuesday, when the Phala Phala saga made the Order Paper as a question from African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyolwethu Zungula, who’s also motivated the current Section 89 impeachment inquiry process.

“I stand ready to cooperate and also to give an explanation and to cooperate with any investigations on this matter… I have responded to the various questions that have been raised and will continue to respond to the questions put to me by the relevant authorities,” Ramaphosa told MPs on Tuesday.

“The authorities have said it’s best they deal with all the attendant matters to the theft that occurred on the farm. I have been counselled and advised to address this matter when these processes have been done. I stand ready to take the nation into confidence.” 

Just not now. And not to Parliament. That was the upshot of Ramaphosa’s scripted response to the question that had been submitted, in line with the rules, at least 16 calendar days earlier.

See in Daily Maverick: "Ramaphosa’s Farmgate scandal – a timeline of what we know (and don’t know) so far"

Or as EFF leader Julius Malema put it: “He said he can answer everyone else. And someone stands up to say he’s answered like they did in the Zuma era.”

It was a reference to ANC MP and Deputy Rural Development Minister Mcebisi Skwatsha, who just before him, said: “Sitting here, the President has adequately answered the question. And he has even referred to him being accountable.”

But that was the ANC line on Tuesday, also repeated by Minister in the Presidency Mondli Gungubele who argued that no prescripts existed on how a question should be answered.

“It [the question] has been responded to. Response is the minimum word. You spoke and you were spoken back to. That’s how the President has responded.”

In many ways, this was a return to the Zuma Q&A sessions when questions would not be qualitatively answered and the then Speaker, Baleka Mbete, told affronted MPs: “You may not like the answer, but the question has been answered.”

It was not something the opposition benches wanted a repeat of, particularly as Parliament describes these presidential and ministerial Q&A sessions as vital for its constitutional responsibilities of oversight and holding the executive to account.

“If the President can get away with not answering questions, it renders the whole exercise futile,” said United Democratic Movement Chief Whip Nqabayomzi Kwankwa.

 ‘Simply not good enough’