Phala Phala: Kieswetter’s remarks don’t exonerate Ramaphosa’s actions nor prove his innocence

8 March 2023 

ActionSA notes the statement by SARS Commissioner, Edward Kieswetter, regarding the tax compliance of President Ramaphosa and his companies, but this does not negate the legitimate concerns over the non-disclosure of the cash stolen from the Phala Phala farm.

Earlier this week, SARS confirmed that it was unable to locate any record that Hazim Mustafa declared the over $580 000 in cash he brought into the country in December 2019 in accordance with our laws. The cash was subsequently handed to an employee of Phala Phala, who stashed it in a couch on the farm.

While Kieswetter spoke broadly to the President’s tax compliance, he did not specifically address the question of whether the sale involving Mustafa was correctly recorded and accounted for as part of the farm’s tax return. Failure to have done so would amount to tax evasion.

Moreover, Kieswetter’s statement does not negate the fact that the cash was not deposited into a South African bank account in accordance with our foreign exchange regulations.

It is illegal for South African businesses to transact in foreign currency unless it is for export purposes, and even then, documentation would exist to legalise such a transaction which had to be by electronic transfer and never in cash. It is further known that tourists are limited to only foreign currency not exceeding R25 000, and no local citizen would be able to hold more than $10 000 in foreign currency.

Kieswetter’s comments do not exonerate the President from the findings made against him in Parliament’s Section 89 Report into the scandal, which found that the President had a serious case for which to answer. The same applies to the ANC’s decision to close ranks around the President by refusing to adopt the report in Parliament.

ActionSA has always maintained that President Ramaphosa’s conduct in this regard was criminal. This position was vindicated by the findings of Section 89 Report. Specifically, the Section 89 panel concluded that there is prima facie evidence that the President may have committed:

A serious violation of sections 96(2)(a).

A serious violation of section 34(1) of PRECCA.

A serious misconduct in that the President violated section 96(2)(b) by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office.

A serious misconduct in that the President violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business.

With the Constitutional Court having dismissed the President’s request for direct access to the apex court to take the report on the review, the findings stand. Neither the remarks by Kieswetter, nor the ANC’s complicity in shielding the Ramaphosa from accountability negate that fact.

President Ramaphosa remains a deeply compromised individual. South Africans deserve a president whose leadership is beyond reproach and after Jacob Zuma, now Ramaphosa, it is clear that ethical leadership cannot be found in the ANC.

Issued by Herman Mashaba, President, ActionSA, 8 March 2023