Ramaphosa Accused of Giving ‘Unlawful Order’ Over Phala Phala Theft as Court Battle Intensifies
President Cyril Ramaphosa has come under renewed pressure in the Western Cape High Court after an opposition lawyer argued that the president gave an unlawful instruction when he reported the theft of US dollars from his Phala Phala farm to the head of his presidential protection unit.
Advocate Kessler Perumalsamy, representing African Transformation Movement leader Vuyo Zungula, made the argument on Thursday as opposition parties defended the Section 89 independent panel report that Ramaphosa wants reviewed and set aside.
The ATM and Economic Freedom Fighters are opposing Ramaphosa’s application.
The case could have major political consequences because the panel report formed the basis of the parliamentary process examining whether Ramaphosa may have committed impeachable misconduct over the Phala Phala scandal.
Opposition challenges Ramaphosa’s explanation
At the centre of Thursday’s argument was Ramaphosa’s decision to inform Major-General Wally Rhoode, the head of the Presidential Protection Service, after foreign currency was stolen from the Limpopo farm in February 2020.
Ramaphosa has maintained that he reported the matter to a senior police official and expected it to be handled appropriately.
The opposition disputes that explanation.
Perumalsamy argued that the independent panel was entitled to question how the burglary was handled and whether the instruction given to Rhoode was lawful.
The ATM and EFF also alleged that the circumstances surrounding the handling of the theft suggested an attempt to conceal the loss of approximately $580,000.
Those allegations remain disputed and have not been established as findings of the court.
Cash hidden inside couch also scrutinised
The storage of the foreign currency also returned to the spotlight.
Opposition lawyers argued that the circumstances surrounding money being hidden inside a couch were relevant when assessing the president’s explanation about the source and handling of the cash.
The court, however, questioned whether there was evidence directly connecting Ramaphosa himself to the decision to conceal the money in that manner.
The exchanges highlight the central issue facing the judges: whether the Section 89 panel had sufficient evidence to reach its conclusions or whether it went beyond what the evidence allowed.
Ramaphosa wants report overturned
Ramaphosa’s legal team maintains that the panel applied the wrong legal threshold.
His lawyers argue that the panel did not adequately distinguish between allegations that might justify further investigation and evidence sufficient to trigger the extraordinary constitutional process of potentially removing a sitting president.
The president denies wrongdoing.
The court has not yet delivered judgment.
The outcome could determine the future of the parliamentary impeachment process connected to Phala Phala.
