Cape Town - Embattled President Cyril Ramaphosa’s explanation about the “safekeeping” of the US dollars concealed in a sofa before they were stolen during a break-in at his Phala Phala farm, has left members of the Section 89 panel probing the scandal with “unsettling gaps”.
Describing Ramaphosa’s reasoning as vague, the panel inferred in its scathing report that Ramaphosa had prior knowledge of the foreign currency being concealed in his sofa – possibly having given instructions for the cash to be stored there while he was on holiday.
The independent panel concluded that Ramaphosa does have a case to answer for serious misconduct charges as prima facie evidence exists over what transpired at the Phala Phala wildlife farm.
He has since taken the report on judicial review, while the National Assembly is expected to debate and vote on whether Ramaphosa should be hauled before an impeachment hearing next week.
Among the questions the panel grappled with was the decision to store the money in a sofa instead of the safe on the farm, and then have it banked.
The currency was concealed there as the lodge manager, identified as Mr Ndlovu, was to go home on December 30, 2019 and he was concerned about the safekeeping of the large amount allegedly from the sale of 20 buffaloes that were never collected.
This, according to Ramaphosa in his submissions, was because Ndlovu was concerned that several staff members had access to the safe and decided that the safest place to store the money was inside the president’s private residence on the farm.
“He stored the money below cushions of a sofa in a spare bedroom that is hardly ever used inside my private residence, because he thought it was the safest place, as he believed nobody would break into the president’s house,”
Ramaphosa claimed in his submission to the panel.
But in their report, the panel, led by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, said the impression that Ramaphosa’s statement gave was that it was Ndlovu’s idea that the money be stored “below cushions of a sofa”.
“Was the money stored in the sofa with the president’s knowledge? We assume that Phala Phala wildlife farm has a safe to keep cash safe, until it can be banked.
“Indeed, the money was first stored in the safe. Why is it that ‘several staff members’ have access to the safe which increases the risk of the safety of cash?
Does this mean that ‘several staff members’ have keys to the safe or access to the code for the safe?
“The money was kept in the safe on December 25, 2019 and it was still in the safe on December 26, 2019. When did Mr Ndlovu’s concerns about keeping the money in the safe arise?
Perhaps it was because he was going away on holiday on December 30, 2019?
“On his return, why did he not take it out of the sofa? At what stage was he going to give Mr von Wielligh (the farm’s general manager) a report about the sale and the cash in the sofa? Why was the money not taken to the bank before Mr Ndlovu left for his holiday on December 30, 2019?
“Why did the president not take the money to the bank in light of the concerns expressed by Mr Ndlovu and the fact that Mr Ndlovu was going away on holiday.
“Perhaps, the decision to ‘store’ the money in the sofa was taken after the president had left the farm. The information presented by the president on the storage of the money is vague and leaves unsettling gaps,” the report read.
Other questions included why so much effort was made to cut open a leather sofa and close it in such a way as to conceal the cash so that the money “which was destined to be banked shortly”, did not fall out.
“On a probability, we do not think that Mr Ndlovu, a lodge manager, would have defied the president’s instructions to keep the money on the farm and in the safe, as is normal business practice, and decide on his own to store the money inside the president’s private residence and in the sofa without the knowledge of the president.
“Mr Ndlovu was too junior to have made such a decision and carried it out without the president’s permission. In all probability, the money was stored in the sofa with the full knowledge and approval of the president...
“The cumulative effect of these factors renders it difficult to accept the acknowledgement of receipt as conclusive proof of the source of the foreign currency.
“Indeed, there are substantial doubts as to whether the foreign currency that was stolen is from the proceeds of the sale of 20 buffaloes.
We think the president has a case to answer on the origin of the foreign currency that was stolen, as well as the underlying transaction for it.”
Meanwhile the African Transformation Movement is taking the fight over the saga to the Constitutional Court, opposing Ramaphosa’s bid to have the report of the Section 89 panel reviewed, and set aside the report.
Cape Times