The carefully phrased 72-word recommendation at the end of the 82-page report came 10 hours after the official, ceremonial handover of the report to Parliament.
Those findings will throw the ANC, already wracked by jockeying ahead of its Nasrec elective conference, into disarray — just at a time when Ramaphosa seemed secure as the frontrunner in the party’s presidential contest.
It now remains to be seen how the ANC parliamentary caucus, which previously stepped up to defend its president, will respond. The Section 89 independent assessment panel report must be adopted by the House to come into force — and lead to the next step, the establishment of an impeachment committee.
If the ANC decides to oppose this, it will blow up in an already tense political terrain and raise further questions about accountability, transparency and responsiveness in South Africa’s constitutional democracy.
The Section 89 report raises questions over explanations over the source of the US dollars stolen from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm, and how the theft was investigated — and finds: “There was a deliberate intention not to investigate the commission of the crimes committed at Phala Phala openly.
“The request to the Namibian Police to ‘handle the matter with discretion’ confirms this intention.
“The president abused his position as Head of State to have the matter investigated and seeking the assistance of the Namibian President to apprehend a suspect.
“There was more foreign currency concealed in the sofa than the amount reflected in the acknowledgement of receipt. This raises the source of the additional currency.”
At Wednesday morning’s ceremonial handover of the report, National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said this marked “one of the indicative milestones in South Africa’s maturing constitutional democracy”. Hours later, the extent of that comment became clear when the actual panel report was released publicly.
Ramaphosa ‘giving consideration to report’
The Presidency, in an almost immediate response, said in a statement that Ramaphosa was “giving consideration to the report and an announcement will be made in due course”.
The Thursday morning briefing by presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya was cancelled, another Presidency statement added.
The “enduring questions” remained the source of the stolen money, why the theft at the President’s home was not reported properly, or to any other police officer than the head of the presidential protection detail, and why the SAPS requested their Nambian counterparts to handle the matter “with discretion”.
The findings came as earlier speculation mooted the African Transformation Movement (ATM) motion’s narrow focus on Section 96 of the Constitution that bans Cabinet members from paid outside work, or from situations that risk conflicts of interests.
And that was effectively met by Ramaphosa explaining he had disclosed his business interests at Phala Phala, that the company is registered and tax compliant, and operations were left to farm managers, leaving him with no active participation. Neither does he earn an income from the farm.
Those presidential responses arose from his statement to the Section 89 independent assessment panel leaked earlier on Wednesday in what clearly was an effort to control the news day’s narrative.
While it’s definitely not the end of the political road for either Ramaphosa or the ANC, things have just become much, much more complicated.
For the past six months, Ramaphosa’s CR22 campaign for a second term as ANC president has unfolded amid the Phala Phala saga. It began in early June when the former spy boss, Arthur Fraser, opened a case with police that $4-million had been stolen from sofa cushions at the president’s Phala Phala farm.
Opposition parties are making political hay.
Phala Phala was Ramaphosa’s Nkandla, said DA leader John Steenhuisen as the EFF promised renewed “Pay back the money” protests in reference to the controversy over taxpayer-funded upgrades at ex-president Jacob Zuma’s rural homestead.
Throughout, Ramaphosa invoked “due process”, and when he did finally speak in Parliament in the late September Q&A slot, he said that the forex on the farm was not money laundering, but from the sale of animals.
Meanwhile, the ANC in Parliament moved to protect the President by divorcing Ramaphosa the President from Ramaphosa the businessman, arguing Phala Phala was a separate business entity entirely.
In June, the ATM submitted a motion in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution that allows the National Assembly to remove a president from office for a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office.
The motion was rejected, but the ATM was allowed to resubmit a complaint motion in what’s the first step of the two-stage process of impeaching a president that was adopted in November 2018.
The appointment of the independent panel to assess whether a case exists for Ramaphosa to be impeached took place after some wrangling over academic, author and commentator Richard Calland, who after dismissing claims of bias also withdrew to ensure the integrity of the process.
That, and the panel’s report and recommendation, were the next steps.
However, as Parliament owns this process, the National Assembly has to adopt the report. That is scheduled for 6 December and is set to be a raucous debate and vote.
DA Chief Whip Siviwe Gwarube has written to the Speaker to ask for voting to be done by roll call so that everyone’s name and vote is recorded, rather than the usual streamlined numerical indications of support or objection stated by the party chief whip.
Given the huge public interest and the “precedent-setting nature of the [panel’s] work”, it was imperative to cast votes manually in a roll call.
“Parliament has been criticised heavily on several occasions in the past for failing in its constitutional duties of holding members of the executive accountable for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions. We are elected to represent the interests of the public and to guard against the abuse of power and resources by the state and members of the Executive,” wrote Gwarube in a letter dated 30 November.
Whether that will happen on the day remains to be seen.
It’s the day the House rises for the end-of-year recess, and it’s almost a given that there will be a heated debate.
But, on Wednesday night, South Africa’s constitutional democracy and its founding values of transparency, accountability and responsiveness were the true winners. DM