The National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) decision not to pursue charges against President Cyril Ramaphosa or any other individuals implicated in the highly controversial Phala Phala farm scandal has sparked widespread outrage and condemnation.
The announcement was made on Thursday by Advocate Mukhali Ivy Thenga, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Limpopo. This decision follows an investigation by the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation (DPCI), which was initiated after former intelligence head Arthur Fraser lodged a complaint with the South African Police Service (SAPS).
Renowned political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe expressed his disappointment, calling the decision an insult to the Section 89 Independent Panel that had previously found that Ramaphosa had violated the Constitution. The panel, chaired by Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, alongside retired High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa and advocate Mahlape Sello, concluded that Ramaphosa had “a case to answer” regarding the foreign currency that was stolen from his farm and the details surrounding its origin and transaction.
Seepe criticized the NPA’s dismissal of the panel’s findings, stating, “When you have a chief justice that says the president has a case to answer and somebody who reports to the president, then you understand that the decision is made by people who are concerned about their career progression.” He warned that such decisions undermine accountability, especially when officials tasked with investigating the president are appointed by him.
Seepe suggested that if political parties seek a different outcome, they should consider pursuing a private prosecution based on the findings of the independent panel. He emphasized that the panel’s judicial experience would outweigh the NPA’s decision, which he viewed as tainted by career interests.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM), a political party, also voiced its concerns. Spokesperson Zama Ntshona labeled the NPA’s decision “odd” and “unbelievable.” Ntshona highlighted Ramaphosa’s own admission of holding undeclared foreign currency for longer than legally permissible, casting doubt on the NPA’s assertion that the evidence would not lead to a successful prosecution.
“The NPA says the evidence presented will not amount to a winnable case. We find this very odd because the President himself admitted to having money that was foreign which he didn’t declare and he had it longer than he should have,” Ntshona said. He called on the NPA to release their investigative report to allow the public to evaluate the credibility of their conclusions.
The Phala Phala scandal revolves around a robbery that took place at Ramaphosa’s farm in February 2020, where an estimated $4 million in cash was stolen, reportedly hidden in furniture. The funds were said to be from the sale of livestock, but the incident was only reported in March of that year, raising further questions about transparency and legal compliance.
As the NPA’s decision continues to face mounting criticism, the public and opposition parties are calling for greater accountability and clarity on the legal reasoning behind it, raising concerns over the independence and integrity of South Africa’s judicial processes.