While the office of the Public Protector has cleared President Cyril Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in the Phala Phala scandal, it found that Presidential Protection Service head Major General Wally Rhoode was not authorised to conduct an investigation into the burglary on the farm.

Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka held a media briefing on Friday afternoon where she released the much-anticipated report on allegations of misconduct by Ramaphosa relating to the Limpopo farm, which is owned by a company that the president is the sole director of.

The matter relates to a burglary on the farm on the night of 9 February 2020, where at least two burglars stole an undisclosed amount of dollars stuffed under a sofa cushion.

News24 previously reported that Ramaphosa claimed the $580 000 in cash was paid to his former farm manager, Sylvester Ndlovu, by Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa on Christmas Day in 2019.

The president has maintained the cash was in exchange for a group of buffaloes, even though the buffaloes remained on the farm more than three years later.

After the theft, Ramaphosa is said to have reported the matters to Rhoode, who allegedly conducted his own investigation.

In her report, Gcaleka dealt with the following allegations against Ramaphosa:

• Whether Ramaphosa acted in a manner that is inconsistent with his office in dealing with the alleged housebreaking and thus abused state resources, exposed himself to any situation involving a risk of a conflict between his constitutional duties and obligations and his private interests arising from or affected by his alleged paid work in violation of the Executive Ethics Code.
• Whether the President failed to report the crime and abused his power in utilising state resources by causing the Presidential Protection Services (PPS) to be deployed to Phala Phala farm and to investigate a housebreaking thus the Executive Ethics Code; and whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct as contemplated in the Constitution and abuse of power as contemplated in the Public Protector Act.
• Whether members of the South African Police Service attached to the PPS acted improperly by investigating the alleged housebreaking and if so, whether such conduct constitutes improper conduct as contemplated in the Constitution and maladministration as contemplated the Public Protector Act.

Gcaleka said they could not investigate tax matters, or foreign exchange control regulations, as that fell under the mandate of the South African Revenue Service (Sars) and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB).

The Public Protector's office also did not investigate whether Ramaphosa had correctly reported the burglary to law enforcement in terms of Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (Precca). Gcaleka said this formed part of the Hawks investigation.

Findings on Ramaphosa

The acting Public Protector found there was no evidence that Ramaphosa was involved in the day-to-day running of the farm, or that he received and remuneration from the farm.

"No evidence could be found indicating that the president either works at Phala Phala farm or receives remuneration from Phala Phala farm," Gcaleka said.

However, she did note that evidence arising from the inspection of the president’s register for financial interests revealed that he retained financial interests in Ntaba Nyoni, the holding company of the Phala Phala farm.

Gcaleka said that, while not conclusive, there were also facts that pointed towards Ramaphosa being more actively involved in the "management of the affairs of the closed corporation than he appears to let on in his general submissions".

"The evidence revealed that the president held discussions with farm managers, notably, regarding the disposal of certain animals due to them being substandard.

"There are, of course, other facts which point away from the president being involved in paid work. For one thing, he neither draws a salary from the Ntaba Nyoni CC nor receives any distributions (only the repayment of a soft loan). He evidently is not often physically present at the farm."

She also found that allegations of a conflict of interest between Phala Phala and Ramaphosa's duties as president were unsubstantiated.

Noting deliberations between Ramaphosa and staff on the farm, the Gcaleka said that, "considering the evidence in its entirety and the application of the law, there is no basis to exalt such deliberations to a degree where it can be held that there existed a real or potential conflict of interests on the part of the president regarding his duty as the Head of Cabinet and his interests in game and cattle farming at Phala Phala farm in violation of the Code".

"No evidence could be found to underpin a finding or a conclusion that the president’s comments or utterances in this regard were a continuous act to be considered or construed as active involvement in the business or paid work."

On whether Ramaphosa had abused his powers to order an investigation into the theft at his farm, Gcaleka said there was no evidence that he ordered Rhoode to investigate the matter, or told him how it should be handled.

Rhoode's conduct improper

Despite clearing Ramaphosa, Gcaleka found that Rhoode had acted improperly when launching an investigation.

Her findings were that Rhoode did not have the powers to launch the off-the-books investigation into the burglary. She also did not accept his version that he was conducting a threat analysis.

According to the report, there was no evidence of a criminal case being registered.

Remedial action

Gcaleka said Police Minister Bheki Cele should take note of the findings of maladministration and improper conduct against the SAPS, in connection with the allegation that police officers attached to PPS acted improperly by investigating the burglary at Phala Phala.