The Office of the Public Protector says the recent ruling by the Constitutional Court on the Phala Phala matter does not invalidate or undermine its own findings into the scandal.
The clarification follows a judgment by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, which found that the directives governing Parliament’s impeachment procedures were unconstitutional.
Parliament had previously rejected a Section 89 independent panel report, which found that President Cyril Ramaphosa had a prima facie case to answer in relation to allegations surrounding foreign currency stolen from his Phala Phala farm in 2020.
In contrast, Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka had earlier cleared Ramaphosa of wrongdoing, concluding that allegations of improper conduct were not substantiated.
Spokesperson Ndili Msoki said the Constitutional Court ruling dealt strictly with Parliament’s processes and not the merits of the Public Protector’s report.
“The Constitutional Court did not deal with, consider, review or make any findings on our report,” Msoki said. “Our report deals with violations of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act and the Public Protector Act. The ConCourt judgment therefore does not undermine or interact with it in any way.”
The office maintains that its findings remain valid and separate from the constitutional issues raised in the court’s ruling on parliamentary procedures.