The Democratic Alliance (DA) is taking on review Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka’s Phala Phala report, which it labelled a “white-wash” and “pro-Ramaphosa public relations exercise” aimed at securing the public protector’s job. 

Accusing Gcaleka of muddying the waters and misinterpreting relevant laws in her final report, DA leader John Steenhuisen said the acting public protector sought to project Ramaphosa as an “innocent bystander” who knew nothing by the inner workings of his administration and the presidential protection unit (PPU).

“Acting Public Protector, Advocate Koleka Gcaleka’s report on allegations of a violation of the Executive Members Ethics Act by President Cyril Ramaphosa pertaining to a theft at his farm at Phala Phala delivered earlier today, was nothing more than a whitewash of the entire sordid Phala Phala scandal.

“Given that Adv Gcaleka is vying for the top job within the Office of the Public Protector, her report today read more like a job interview than a concluded investigation.

“By burying the merits of this investigation in legal jargon and semantics, and contorting the law in her interpretation of both the Executive Members Ethics Act and the Constitution, she has attempted to paint President Cyril Ramaphosa as nothing more than an innocent bystander to the Phala Phala scandal, oblivious to the workings of the Presidential Protection Services, his responsibilities as the head of South Africa’s national executive, and his duty as the first citizen of the nation. This report could only be described as a pro-Ramaphosa public relations exercise,” said DA leader John Steenhuisen.

Steenhuisen said they planned to take the report on judicial review.

“The Democratic Alliance will be consulting with our lawyers to take this report on review as we believe it contains a number of misinterpretations of the relevant pieces of legislation and presents a worrying lack of evidence that the Office of the Public Protector itself has seemingly failed to source. In doing so, Adv Gcaleka has muddied the waters of a matter to which South Africans still do not have any clear answers,” he said.

ATM President Vuyo Zungula shared Steenhuisen’s sentiment, adding his party would also take Gcaleka’s report on review. He accused her of ignoring or omitting key evidence presented at the Section 94 inquiry as well as the findings of an independent panel led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. The panel found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer. 

On Friday, Gcaleka spent more than an hour reading the 250-page report during a media briefing this afternoon, which the DA has labelled “a job interview”. 

The Public Protector’s office was tasked with investigating whether Ramaphosa failed to report the burglary that took place at his farm in Waterberg, Limpopo, in February 2020, or that he caused his Presidential Protection Services (PPS) to conduct an illegal investigation on his behalf.

Instead of finding that Ramaphosa abused his power or had a conflict of interest as alleged by opposition parties, such as the ATM and the DA, Gcaleka cleared Ramaphosa. She found that Ramaphosa’s head of security General Wally Rhoode was guilty of abusing state resources on his own.

Steenhuisen said they planned to take the report on judicial review.

“The Democratic Alliance will be consulting with our lawyers to take this report on review as we believe it contains a number of misinterpretations of the relevant pieces of legislation and presents a worrying lack of evidence that the Office of the Public Protector itself has seemingly failed to source. In doing so, Adv Gcaleka has muddied the waters of a matter to which South Africans still do not have any clear answers,” he said.

The DA leader also compared the infamous Nkandla report, which was released by former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, and found that former President Jacob Zuma was responsible for money that was spent to upgrade his homestead in Nkandla Village in KwaZulu-Natal. 

“It is also gravely concerning to note the discrepancies between the Nkandla Report, whose interpretation of similar laws found that former President Jacob Zuma was severely compromised as President of the Republic, yet Cyril Ramaphosa is seemingly assessed by different standards. We will be asking our lawyers to consult the Nkandla Report for any potential legal precedent that can be used to point out the discrepancies in Adv Gcaleka’s findings. 

“Most worrying in this flawed report is the insidious weakening of South Africa’s institutions as the very last bastions of accountability in our young democracy. Should the Office of the Public Protector indeed be captured, the DA will work tirelessly to ensure that our democratic institutions are rid of any political influence to ensure that the principles of accountability and equality before the law are always upheld. Our country’s future depends on them,” Steenhuisen said.

Gcaleka repeatedly stated that she found nothing wrong with how Ramaphosa handled the burglary.

“The allegation that the President abused his power in utilising state resources by causing the PPS to be deployed to Phala Phala farm and to investigate housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft at the said farm, is not substantiated. The evidence placed before the Public Protector does not support the allegation of abuse of power in utilising state resources by causing the PPS to be deployed to Phala Phala farm and to investigate the crime of housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft at Phala Phala farm.

She added: “Based on the evidence obtained, the Public Protector concludes that the President reported the security breach in the form of housebreaking at Phala Phala farm, on 10 February 2020 to General Rhoode. The Public  Protector further finds that on 02 March 2020, the President reported the theft of cash in foreign currency, which took place on the same day of the housebreaking, at his private residence on Phala Phala farm to General Rhoode, who is a senior police officer and a member of the PPS, a component of the South African Police Service (SAPS).”

On the issue of the burglary not being properly reported, Gcaleka laid the blame squarely on Rhoode’s shoulders.

“Evidence tendered before the Public Protector further reveals that General Rhoode did not inform his commanding officer about this crime after the president reported it to him on 10 February and 02 March 2020. Instead, General Rhoode alleges that he reported the crime to General Sindile Mfazi, the then National Head of SAPS’ Detection Service, who has since passed away. The Public Protector was neither provided with any proof by General Rhoode to support the assertion that he reported the matter to the late General Mfazi, nor was the information available from SAPS.

“No case docket was opened and registered on the CAS of SAPS to enable an official investigation by the relevant Crime Detection Service. Consequently, this crime was also not captured in the SAPS’s Crime Statistics Report for the financial year 2019/2020.

“Further evidence before the Public Protector reveals that General Rhoode assembled his own investigation team and subsequently engaged in an unofficial criminal investigation, which included interviewing suspects, witnesses, conducting surveillance, travelling to Cape Town to trace suspects, collecting evidence, and compiling a report in connection with the incident that occurred at the President’s house at Phala Phala farm,” said Gcaleka.