President Cyril Ramaphosa May Have Violated The Constitution: Section 89 Independent Panel
1.The Constitutional Section 89 Independent Panel on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala Farm Saga finds compelling
evidence that he may have violated the constitution.
The panel headed by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, together with retired Judge Thokozile Masipa and Advocate Sello
Mahlape SC handed its report to the National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa Nqakula on 30 November 2022, in Cape Town.
The following are the charges investigated and recommendations:
Charges Findings/Recommendations
Charge 1: Serious Violation of the
Constitution – Violation of section 96
(2)(a), read with section 83 (b) of the
Constitution
The President is guilty of serious violation of section 96(2)(a) of the Constitution, which
provides that members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not undertake any other paid
work, in that:
(a) He, in response to allegations by Mr. Arthur Fraser, told delegates to a Conference of the
African National Congress in Limpopo that “I’m a farmer, I am in the cattle business and the
game business… I buy and I sell animals…. This that is being reported was a clear business
transaction of selling animals.”;
(b) The statement by the President confirms that he is actively running his farming business
and this also means the President misled the nation when in 2014, on assuming office as
Deputy President, he said that all his business interests would be managed by a blind trust;
and
(c) By violating section 96(2)(a) of the Constitution, he failed to uphold, defend and respect the
Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic, as required of him by section 83(b) of the
Constitution.
Charge 2: Serious Violation of the Law –
Violation of section 34(1) of the
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt
Activities Act 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004),
The President is guilty of serious violation of section 34(1) of the Prevention and Combating of
Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004) (the Act), which places a duty on any person
to report corrupt transactions to any police official, in that:
read with the South African Police
Service Amendment Act, 2012 (Act No
10 of 2012)
(a) The President failed to report the theft on his farm to any police official as required by the
Act;
(b) Reporting the matter to General Wally Rhoode, a member of the Presidential Protection
Unit, is not in compliance with the South African Police Service Amendment Act, 2012 (Act No
10 of 2012) which directs that reporting should be made to the police official in the Directorate
for Priority Crime Investigation in terms of Section 34(1) of the Prevention and Combating of
Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act 12 of 2004); and
(c) The fact that there is no case number to date is proof that the manner in which the
purported reporting was made was irregular and unlawful.
Charge 3: Serious Misconduct –
Violation of section 96 (2)(b) read with
section 83 (b) of the Constitution
The President is guilty of serious misconduct by violating section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution,
which provides that Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not, inter alia, expose
themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities
and private interests, in that:
(a) A member of the Presidential Protection unit, General Wally Rhoode, was directed to deal
with security issues in the private farm (of the President) in violation of the provisions of
section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution;
(b) President Ramaphosa’s life and limb was not threatened by the burglary and thus General
Wally Rhoode had no business to be investigating anything at the Phala Phala Farm as
unlawfully directed by the President; and
(c) By violating section 96 (2) (b) of the Constitution, he failed to uphold, defend and respect
the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic, as required of him by section 83(b) of the
Constitution.
Charge 4: Serious Misconduct –
Violation of section 96 (2)(b) read with
section 83 (b) of the Constitution
The President is guilty of serious misconduct by violating section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution,
which provides that Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not, inter alia, act in a
way that is inconsistent with their office, in that:
(a) The President gave an unlawful instruction to General Wally Rhoode, a member of the
Presidential Protection Unit, to investigate the burglary in his private farm and the instruction
to investigate rather than to report the
matter in terms of the law shows dishonesty and constitutes misconduct and unlawfulness on
the part of the President; and
(b) By violating section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution, he failed to uphold, defend and respect
the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic, as required of him by section 83(b) of the
Constitution.”
- The panel has concluded that, in light of all the information received in all charges, there is a prima facie evidence that the
president may have violated the constitution and has a serious case to answer.
“A serious misconduct in that the President violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between
his official responsibilities and his private business. of the Constitution.” - What the Section 96 of the Constitution say:
Conduct of Cabinet members and Deputy Ministers - (1) Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers must act in accordance with a code of ethics prescribed by national
legislation.
(2) Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not—
(a) undertake any other paid work;
(b) act in any way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict
between their official responsibilities and private interests; or
(c) use their position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person.
