The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Limpopo, advocate Mukhali Ivy Thenga, made the decision not to prosecute anyone in the Phala Phala case after a “comprehensive investigation process” that was conducted by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DCPI), according to NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga.
The investigation was based on the criminal complaint that the former head of the State Security Agency, Arthur Fraser, filed with the South African Police Service (SAPS) in June 2022. The complaint, laid against Ramaphosa, related to the theft of a large sum of US dollars from the President’s Phala Phala farm in February 2020.
Read more in Daily Maverick: Phala Phala - a timeline
“The complainant requested the SAPS to investigate the conduct of the President and that of Major General Wally Rhoode, alleging that it amounted to the commission of money laundering and corruption. The investigations also covered any possible contravention of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and Exchange Control Regulation 1962. This was subsequent to the break-in and theft of an undisclosed amount of US dollars at Phala Phala Farm, Bela Bela, Limpopo,” stated Mhaga.
“The decision not to prosecute was taken by the DPP after a careful assessment of all available evidence presented to the prosecutors by the DPCI.”
Thenga concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution based on evidence contained in the docket, said Mhaga.
“The [Director of Public Prosecutions] made her decision in line with the prosecution policy of the NPA, which states that a prosecutor, in deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings against an accused person, must assess whether there is sufficient and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution,” he said.
Mhaga said various factors had to be considered when the prosecutor evaluated evidence, including:
- The strength of the case for the State;
- The availability of evidence;
- Whether the State witnesses were likely to be credible;
- The admissibility of the evidence;
- The reliability of the evidence; and
- The strength of the case for the defence.
Commenting on the NPA’s announcement, the executive director of Corruption Watch, Karam Singh, said: “Unanswered questions remain despite the decision not to prosecute and decision of other offices of no ethical breaches or prosecutable criminal offences.”
Read more:
- ANC, EFF trade legal blows in Constitutional Court over challenge to Parliament’s Phala Phala vote
- Phala Phala down: ANC foils parliamentary probe into Ramaphosa scandal despite united opposition
- Money talks – what the SA Reserve Bank report had to say about the Phala Phala couch cash
Throughout the Phala Phala scandal, Ramaphosa has been called upon to account for his actions before several institutional bodies, including Parliament, the Public Protector and the South African Reserve Bank.
In August this year, Daily Maverick reported that the EFF wanted the Constitutional Court to find the National Assembly guilty of violating the Constitution by voting against taking action on the “cash-in-couch allegations” against the President.
The motion for a special parliamentary investigation into the incident was defeated by the ANC in a National Assembly vote in early 2023. The Constitutional Court hearing is scheduled for 26 November. DM