The hidden foreign currency, the leather couch and the question of who knew what have taken centre stage in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal battle to overturn the report that placed his Phala Phala farm saga at the heart of a possible impeachment process.
The Western Cape High Court heard on Thursday that the more than half-a-million dollars stolen from Ramaphosa’s Limpopo game farm was concealed inside a couch, with the African Transformation Movement arguing that the circumstances pointed to possible paid outside work by the president.
The argument was made during Ramaphosa’s application to review and set aside the report of the Section 89 Independent Panel.
The panel, chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found in November 2022 that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for Ramaphosa to face four impeachment charges linked to the theft and the handling of the investigation.
The court has not yet delivered judgment on the president’s review application.
Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing throughout the controversy. He has maintained that the foreign currency was proceeds from the sale of game at Phala Phala and has challenged the panel’s conclusions and the way it assessed the evidence.
The matter has become one of the most politically damaging scandals of Ramaphosa’s presidency because it involves a large amount of cash, a private farm, an investigation that was not initially reported to the police and questions about whether the president complied with his constitutional and legal obligations.
The Money In The Couch
The theft involved about US$580,000 in cash taken from Phala Phala in February 2020. At the time, the amount was worth roughly R8.5 million to R8.7 million, depending on the exchange rate.
The money was not reported to the police immediately.
The theft only became public in June 2022 when former State Security Agency boss Arthur Fraser laid a criminal complaint. Fraser alleged that millions of dollars had been stolen from the farm and that the matter had been covered up.
The report triggered a political storm and led to the formation of the Section 89 panel, which was asked to determine whether there was enough evidence to justify an impeachment inquiry against the president.
In court, ATM advocate Kessler Perumalsamy argued that the cash being hidden in a couch was central to the panel’s findings.
He told the court that the source of the foreign currency could point to whether Ramaphosa had engaged in paid work that had not been properly disclosed.
Perumalsamy said: “If you’re engaged in concealing money in a couch, you are doing so because you don’t want to fall foul of the contravention of other paid work. The source of the money is the key that shows that you have done other paid work.”
The argument relates to allegations that Ramaphosa may have breached rules governing paid outside work while serving as president.
The president’s position is that the cash came from a game sale. His legal challenge disputes the panel’s assessment of the evidence and its interpretation of the events at the farm.
Judges Question Evidence Against Ramaphosa
The judges hearing the matter pressed Perumalsamy on the evidence linking Ramaphosa personally to the concealment of the money.
Judge Mark Sher asked where the evidence was that the president had been involved in hiding the cash.
“Where is the evidence that the president engaged in stashing or concealing the money in the couch?” Sher asked.
He also asked whether there was evidence that Ramaphosa knew what had been planned, directed that the money be hidden or agreed to the concealment.
“Where is the evidence that the president knew that that is what was planned, that the president directed that that is what must happen, that the president acceded to that, was an accomplice to that?” Sher asked.
“Where is the evidence that the president was at all involved in that? That he even knew that this happened?”
The questions went to one of the central issues in Ramaphosa’s application: whether the panel had enough evidence to draw adverse conclusions about the president or whether it relied on an inference that was not properly supported.
Perumalsamy argued that the panel did not consider only the evidence against Ramaphosa. He said it looked at the president’s version as well as the evidence that contradicted it.
He argued that, after weighing the versions, the panel was entitled to reject the president’s explanation on a balance of probabilities.
The panel reportedly found it unlikely that a lodge manager would disregard an instruction to keep the money in a safe at the farm and instead decide independently to hide it in the president’s private home.
That finding formed part of the reasoning relied on by the ATM in opposing the review application.
The legal dispute is not about whether the cash was stolen. It is about what the evidence showed regarding the money’s source, the way the theft was handled and whether the Section 89 panel acted lawfully when it found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer.
The Question Of The Farm Investigation
The theft was investigated through a process involving Ramaphosa’s head of security, Major-General Wally Rhoode, and other officials.
The fact that the matter was not reported to the police immediately became one of the most controversial parts of the saga.
The president’s critics argued that the response involved senior officials and crossed the line from a private security matter into an unlawful investigation.
Ramaphosa’s legal team has rejected that characterisation and has argued that the Section 89 panel report was fundamentally flawed.
The president has also challenged the panel’s mandate and conclusions, saying the report did not meet the legal threshold required for an impeachment process.
The court’s questions indicate that the judges are examining whether the panel had a proper evidentiary basis for its findings, rather than simply deciding whether the political allegations surrounding Phala Phala are serious.
The judges must also consider whether the panel applied the correct legal test when assessing the evidence.
The Section 89 process was not a criminal trial. The panel was not required to decide whether Ramaphosa was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Its role was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to justify further parliamentary action.
That distinction has become central to the arguments before court.
The ATM’s position is that the panel was entitled to assess the competing versions and decide whether a serious constitutional violation or misconduct was reasonably supported by the available information.
Ramaphosa’s position is that the report went too far and should be reviewed and set aside.
Impeachment Process Remains On Hold
The pending review has placed Parliament’s impeachment process on hold.
The Section 89 Impeachment Committee was expected to consider the findings of the independent panel, but the process cannot proceed while the court challenge remains unresolved.
The same court previously barred the committee from sitting while the review application was being heard.
That means the judges’ eventual decision could determine whether the report remains available for Parliament to use or whether the impeachment process must be reconsidered.
If Ramaphosa succeeds, the report could be set aside and the parliamentary process would face a major legal setback.
If he fails, the panel’s findings would remain in place, although Parliament would still have to decide what action to take.
The outcome would not automatically mean that Ramaphosa had been impeached or found guilty of a crime. It would determine whether the Section 89 report survives the legal challenge and whether Parliament can continue considering the allegations.
Political Stakes Remain High
The case has continued years after the cash was stolen because the allegations touch on the conduct expected from the country’s head of state.
The questions include whether Ramaphosa was involved in the concealment of the money, whether he knew how the theft was handled, whether the cash came from a lawful source and whether any paid outside work was properly declared.
The president has rejected wrongdoing and has insisted that the money came from a game sale.
The ATM argues that the panel considered all the evidence and was justified in finding that Ramaphosa had a case to answer.
The judges’ questions show that the court is closely examining the chain of evidence connecting the president to the couch, the farm investigation and the alleged unlawful conduct.
For the opposition parties supporting the panel report, the case is about accountability at the highest level of government.
For Ramaphosa, it is a challenge to a report he says was legally defective and based on conclusions that were not supported by the evidence.
The three-judge panel, comprising Sher, Judge President Nolwazi Mabindla-Boqwana and Judge Ncumisa Mayosi, still has to decide whether the Section 89 report should stand.
The arguments are continuing.
Until the judgment is delivered, the cash found hidden at Phala Phala, the decisions made after the theft and the question of what the president knew will remain at the centre of one of South Africa’s most closely watched political court battles.
