Court rules against organisation in Ramaphosa theft case

Another attempt to prosecute President Cyril Ramaphosa over the theft of US$580,000 in cash from his Phala Phala farm has failed and proved costly for the Society of the Protection of Our Constitution.

The society had summoned Ramaphosa to appear before the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).

The organisation had sought an order compelling the Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria, Sibongile Mzinyathi, and National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi to secure Ramaphosa’s attendance at the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court by way of summons as contemplated in the CPA on charges relating to the theft.

According to the Act, the methods of securing the attendance of an accused who is 18 years or older in court for his or her trial are arrest, summons, written notice, and indictment.

The society’s case against the president was withdrawn in July 2023, as he (Ramaphosa) believed that the application was not competent.

However, the society could not satisfy Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Acting Judge Jacques Minnaar, who was unconvinced that the entity should not be ordered to pay costs.

The acting judge said the society had legal representation throughout the court proceedings, and a generous invitation was extended in June 2023 for it to withdraw the application; however, it did not accept this invitation.

Ramaphosa had warned the society that if it fails to withdraw its application, or persists in pursuing it after he filed his answering affidavit, it will be submitted to the court that the organisation should not enjoy the Biowatch protection.

The Biowatch principle states that parties that seek to vindicate constitutional rights against the State are not liable to pay its legal costs even if they are unsuccessful.

"Accordingly, the court will be asked to order the applicant and/or its legal representatives to pay the costs in this application," the president said in court.

Acting Judge Minnaar said in the absence of an agreement to costs, the society failed to tender any costs in the notice of withdrawal and defended the costs application way out of time and by way of a very cryptic answering affidavit.

"No shred of justification is provided for why the main application was indeed brought and then withdrawn. The applicant (the society) failed to take this court into its confidence by lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding the applicant’s identity," the acting judge reasoned in his judgment handed down on September 2.

Additionally, he ruled that it follows that there are no grounds to deprive Ramaphosa of his costs in the main application.

"Equally so, there is no basis why the first respondent (Ramaphosa) should be out of pocket on pursuing this costs application," reads the judgment.

Despite attempts to force the society to withdraw its application, its lawyers, Zehir Omar Attorneys, wrote to Ramaphosa’s legal representatives indicating that their client instructed them not to continue with the application any further.

Ramaphosa’s lawyers then demanded a formal notice of withdrawal, but Zehir Omar Attorneys responded, disputing the authority of his legal representatives and further stated that the society heeded the caution and conveyed in writing its intention not to continue with the proceedings.

Acting Judge Minnaar ordered the society to pay Ramaphosa’s costs of the main application summoning the president to the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on scale A, which is the lowest scale and is applied by default if no scale is specified.

Zehir Omar Attorneys, legal representatives for the society, which was described as a non-existent entity in court, did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

loyiso.sidimba@inl.co.za