One of former president Jacob Zuma's sons alleges that, after studying the full ruling of the Public Protector against President Cyril Ramaphosa, he is convinced that Tom Moyane was removed in order to ensure that he does not probe the sitting head of State.
Edward Zuma, who in the past has had spats with Pravin Gordhan and Derek Hanekom - both Ramaphosa loyalists - also claimed that Advocate Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi were removed from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in order to ensure that Ramaphosa and his pre-Nasrec campaign team are not investigated.
In a statement he issued on Monday morning, Zuma junior claimed that the Ria Tenda Trust, which was used to collect money for Ramaphosa’s campaign, was signed off by its trustees around February 2017 and the trust was officially registered in April 2017.
He claimed that based on the above there were clear intentions on Ramaphosa's part and those around him to circumvent the law and as consequence thereof, there were clear intentions to hide their deeds.
“The amounts involved are of serious concern and attract serious tax issues, both on the side of the donors and the recipient, which cannot be ignored by whoever is in charge of [SA Revenue Services] Sars. On close scrutiny and the purpose for which the Trust was formed, one cannot escape to conclude that the trust was and is the alter ego of the President. In simple terms, it’s a sham, in my humble view. The issue of personal loans and repayment s thereof by campaign managers, leave too much to be desired and call for strong scrutiny by Sars,” Zuma claimed.
He further claimed that the involvement of the accountants raises serious questions, in lieu of the fact that there is a suggestion that the R700 million is seriously understated.
“Given the above maqabane (comrades), I am still (questioning) whether the removal of Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi, were also not spidient (sic) and self serving. If the two were not removed, they would have played a critical role in the investigation and prosecution of the matter herein, given the fact that Sars would have referred the matter to Saps, ultimately to NPA for prosecution. If I am right in my analysis, there is a clear case of abuse of power and office, to protect self interest.”