As the Constitutional Court mulls its judgment in the Economic Freedom Fighters’ (EFF) legal challenge this week against Parliament's decision to dismiss an impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal, the president continues to evade accountability.
As the Phala Phala scandal deepens, it raises concerns that both Ramaphosa and the State are placing him above the law.
The lack of decisive action over glaring irregularities — from the handling of a suspicious cash transaction to the failure to report a high-profile burglary — threatens to erode trust in government transparency.
Despite multiple investigations and Ramaphosa’s own statements, and the fact that the president has yet to refund Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa for buffalo purchased in 2019, as promised by him ahead of the May 29 elections, more questions pile up.
This inaction adds to a growing list of unanswered questions surrounding his presidency.
1. Why hasn’t Ramaphosa refunded the R8 million for the buffalo?
Hazim Mustafa allegedly paid $580,000 (R8 million) in cash for 20 buffalo in December 2019. Four years later, the animals remain on Phala Phala farm, and Mustafa has reportedly demanded his money back, including interest.
Earlier this year in an interview with Talk Radio 702, Ramaphosa confirmed the refund request is being “processed”, but no concrete steps have been taken.
IOL reached out the president’s spokesperson Vincent Ngwenya on Thursday for comment as to whether Ramaphosa had repaid Mustafa for the buffalo.
IOL asked Ngwenya:
1. Has Ramaphosa repaid the nearly R8m back to Mustafa?
2. If so, when?
3. If not, why not?
He responded: “I have no comment on the matter, thank you. Regards Vincent.”
The question now being asked is why the president delayed repaying a sum he acknowledges receiving, and what does this suggest about the legitimacy of the transaction?
2. Why was the burglary not reported to the police?
The February 2020 burglary at Phala Phala farm, in which large sums of foreign currency were allegedly stolen, was reported only to Ramaphosa’s head of security, Major-General Wally Rhoode.
The failure to involve law enforcement and obtain a formal case number raises serious questions about why the president circumvented standard reporting procedures. What was Ramaphosa trying to conceal, and why hasn’t this critical omission been properly investigated?
3. Where is the proof of Hazim Mustafa’s currency declaration?
Mustafa claims he declared the $580,000 in cash upon arrival at OR Tambo International Airport, but the South African Revenue Service (Sars) has found no record of such a declaration.
Did Ramaphosa verify the legality of the funds before accepting them, or was he complicit in a transaction that bypassed South African tax laws?
Sars has launched a criminal case into whether Mustafa declared the $580,000 cash at OR Tambo International Airport, as required by South African law.
Mustafa claimed he submitted the documentation but failed to provide evidence when Sars and opposition leader John Steenhuisen requested it through a Promotion of Access to Information Act application.
The Hawks are now handling the case. Mustafa has denied any wrongdoing, insisting his documents are “100% correct”.
Still, the absence of verifiable records raises the spectre of potential violations of tax laws, which require mandatory declarations of large sums of foreign currency.
4. What is the true amount of money stolen from Phala Phala?
Ramaphosa claims $580,000 was stolen during the burglary, but evidence suggests the amount may have been significantly higher.
One suspect, Imanuwela David, allegedly spent over R10 million on luxury items after the theft. Former spy-boss, Arthur Fraser, who exposed the scandal, claimed up to $8 million (R115 million) was taken.
Why are there discrepancies in the stolen amount, and what does this reveal about the president’s transparency?
5. Why hasn’t Ramaphosa challenged the Ngcobo panel’s findings in court?
An independent parliamentary panel led by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo questioned the legitimacy of the buffalo transaction and the handling of the stolen funds.
While the ANC blocked further action in Parliament, Ramaphosa has not sought to overturn the panel’s findings in court.
If the president believes he acted lawfully, why hasn’t he used the judiciary to clear his name definitively?
This week, the EFF was in the Constitutional Court to challenge Parliament's decision to dismiss an impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal.
The EFF, supported by the African Transformation Movement (ATM), argued that Parliament’s decision not to pursue an impeachment investigation was unlawful and irrational.
The key arguments put forward by the EFF include:
Parliament failed to act on the advice of a Section 89 panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, which found sufficient grounds for an impeachment investigation.
The ruling ANC used its parliamentary majority to shield Ramaphosa from accountability.
The EFF seeks a ruling that any prima facie findings from such panels automatically trigger a full impeachment investigation.
Above the Law?
As these questions linger, political observers say Ramaphosa’s presidency remains tainted by suspicion.
The Phala Phala scandal is no longer just about a missing currency declaration or undelivered buffalo — it’s about whether South Africa’s highest officeholder is subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens.
IOL Politics