Acting Public Protector Koleka Gcaleka. File picture
POLITICAL parties planning to challenge the findings of acting Public Protector Koleka Gcaleka’s report into the Phala Phala saga concerning President Cyril Ramaphosa have a leg to stand on.
This is according to political analysts, following the African Transformation Movement (ATM), ActionSA and the DA announcing legal action to challenge the findings that cleared Ramaphosa of any wrongdoing in terms of the Executive Ethics Code and abuse of his power.
Among others, the Public Protector’s report into the matter found: “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 a housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft at the said farm, is not substantiated.
“The allegation that the president improperly and in violation of the provisions of the Executive Ethics Code exposed himself to any risk of a conflict between his constitutional duties and obligations and his private interests is not substantiated.”
The ATM, who had lodged a complaint with the PP’s office last year, said it rejected the report.
“This report contributes to the erosion of our democracy and a growing lack of trust in Chapter 9 institutions who are tasked with holding this constitutional democracy together. The ATM has taken a decision of approaching the high court with the aim of reviewing this report by the acting Public Protector and have it set aside,” the ATM said.
The DA also said it planned on taking the report on review. DA leader John Steenhuisen said: “It is 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.”
Political analyst, Professor Sipho Seepe said the report was a classic case of “see no evil, hear no evil and report no evil”.
“The acting Public Protector has misdirected herself. She chose to ignore the findings of the Constitutional Court on a matter relating to ‘conflict of interest’,” Seepe said.
“Had she done so, she would have come to a conclusion that President Ramaphosa did not only expose himself to a situation in which he finds himself having to juggle between his private interests and those of his office, but is probably guilty of having abused his office.
“It is evident that she either has not bothered to read the report of the parliamentary panel or chose to ignore it. The panel found that President Ramaphosa has a case to answer after careful consideration of his own submissions and other records.”
Stellenbosch University School of Public Leadership professor Zwelinzima Ndevu said: “My understanding is that the process of the court review is different from the PP process and we have seen in the past instances where the PP report has been set aside by a court.
“If political parties are not satisfied with the PP report it is within their right to approach courts to find relief, to test the application of the law and challenge the legality of the report.”