Glencore and Phala Phala’s crime seal Ramaphosa as arguably morally repugnant to lead the ANC and SA a day further

By: Clyde Ramalaine 

Ludwig von Mises reminded us, “There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, and vile men.” I involuntarily thought of Von Mises’ conclusion on a particular type of menace that plausibly has a South African society in this epoch embodied in its executive leadership, namely President Cyril Ramaphosa. Authentic leadership must inspire trustworthiness, transparency, respect for law and order, and authenticity in serving as the custodian of justice. South Africa deserves nothing less.

To appreciate this quest for authentic leadership, we must only consider the last week’s news. Firstly, the startling for some is Glencore’s admissions of crimes detailing bribery committed in at least seven African countries. Secondly, the Arthur Fraser statement and Rosebank Police Station opened a case on crimes on Ramaphosa’s farm on and around February 9, 2020. While my claim of a corrupt president can be made in a much wider arc, in this musing, I restrict myself to only the two incidents mentioned above that dovetail with the month of May. I have elsewhere made the case that South Africa under Ramaphosa details a truly captured state with the second term of office for the incumbent as its nexus. In any normal society where the State in all its expressions [Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary] and a dominant well-funded slice of mainstream media are not captured in a nexus of Ramaphosa’s second term, the incumbent would already have vacated his position as South African and ANC President.

On May 24, about the Global Resources multinational Glencore corruption and subsequent guilty pleas, the US Attorney Damian Williams said: “The scope of this criminal bribery scheme is staggering. Glencore paid bribes to secure oil contracts. Glencore paid bribes to avoid government audits. Glencore bribed judges to make lawsuits disappear. At the bottom, Glencore paid bribes to make money—hundreds of millions of dollars. And it did so with the approval, and even encouragement, of its top executives.” US Attorney Vanessa Roberts Avery said on the same score: “Glencore’s market price manipulation threatened financial harm and undermined participants’ faith in the commodities markets’ fair and efficient function that we all rely on. This guilty plea, and the substantial financial penalty incurred, is an appropriate consequence for Glencore’s criminal conduct, and we are pleased that Glencore has agreed to cooperate in any ongoing investigations and prosecutions relating to their misconduct…”

Glencore’s crimes detail several countries, including the United States. While South Africa is not yet mentioned, it would be inconceivable to accept that Glencore conducted its affairs differently in South Africa with any sense of morality. Glencore, however, defends its SA operations with a statement that reads: “Regarding the allegations relating to Optimum Coal, Glencore cooperated fully with the Public Protector investigation and Zondo Commission into State Capture. Glencore denies any allegation of wrongdoing, and the conclusion of both processes confirms this.” This statement on the part of Glencore takes more than refuge in the findings of the public protector and the Zondo Commission.

It furthermore exonerates Ramaphosa with the following words: “Mr. Ramaphosa had mot direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of Optimum Coal Holdings ( OCH) or Optimum Coal Mine (OCM.) Mr Ramaphosa divested his entire interest in OCH on May 22, 2014, prior to him taking office as the Deputy President and prior to his involvement with the Eskom War Room. The suggestion that Glencore involved Mr. Ramaphosa in the acquisition of OCH with a view to, or with the expectation of, leveraging Mr Ramaphosa’s influence to achieve amendments to the CSA is false and baseless.”

The problem with Glencore’s choreographed statement related to its South African operations and the Ramaphosa connection is that it does not align with all its admitted crimes in the USA and seven other countries for which it is putting up U$1,5bn in guilt admission. Secondly, knowing this statement is the product of a legal craft, it could not escape the standard public relations exercise that makes for this presidency, which means that Glencore’s account is at pains to clear a politician Ramaphosa as a person. The statement naturally expects us as South Africans and the world over, notwithstanding a sea of endemic corruption as standard practice for its business over the last ten years, to accept that Glencore was absent in any crimes in South Africa. What would be the motivation for not doing what it does all over – which became a very lucrative regime? Also, a Ramaphosa  SA presidency in upkeep is the assignment and task of global old-western dictate. It details an interest beyond local white capital but extends to a worldwide Western interest that finds his presidency very useful for their core objectives.

Why must South Africans today believe Glencore, a convicted criminal multinational, when its record shows itself as an entity with a DNA of corruption and bribery? Secondly, their reliance on a Zondo Commission of State Capture outcomes is disingenuous. Many of us have been at pains to show that Zondo’s entire report must be placed at the interstice of his political interest to become Chief Justice and Ramaphosa’s interest to have a second term. His glaring ignoring of critical information presented by former Eskom CEOs Brian Molefe and Matshele Koko, who in naked sense, showed the intricate involvement of Ramaphosa in Glencore while serving as Chairperson of Eskom War Room.

Also, Glencore knows that its billionaire Swiss-based boss Ivan Glassenberg point blank refused to testify at the charade of a Zondo Commission. Zondo, in this instance, as humble as a lamb, nowhere in his voluminous million pages of reports, displays any discomfort that he allowed Glassenberg this right when he illegally presided over jailing  Zuma for walking out after the latter declared him a compromised witness and judge. Glencore thus cannot take refuge in Zondo, who told us all what a big fan he is of Ramaphosa with his statement: had it not been for Ramaphosa’s election at the ANC 54th Conference, the country would have been in a worse state. So, to Glencore and its neatly crafted statement, we shall say. This statement on your SA operations and Ramaphosa is valiant public relations attempt to protect Ramaphosa, but your convicted status as a renowned endemically corrupt organisation place you in no legitimate space to have us accept your word as gospel.

On Tuesday, May 31, Arthur Fraser, former director-general of the State Security Agency (SSA), in an official media statement, made public his opening of a case against Ramaphosa. In an affidavit, he informed us he had taken the “unprecedented” step of opening a criminal case against South Africa’s first citizen, President Cyril Ramaphosa, for allegedly concealing a multimillion-dollar robbery from the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the South African Revenue Service (SARS). Fraser’s media statement contends the case “emanates” from the alleged theft of “in excess of four million US dollars” concealed “within the premises of the President’s Phala Phala farm in Waterberg, Limpopo.” According to Fraser, Ramaphosa’s domestic worker abetted the crime of theft when robbers took the money. The true extent of Fraser’s allegations that detail a criminal case against Ramaphosa is yet to be engaged for its true impact.

Fraser’s statement concludes with, “I also trust that the President will take the nation into his confidence and accept or deny that the events I describe in my affidavit on his property.” Recently appointed Presidential spokesman Vincent Magwenya had his baptism of fire when he released a statement on behalf of his principal and had to field several interviews emanating from the Ramaphosa account or statement. Anyone who has read Ramaphosa’s statement can attest that Ramaphosa does not deny a robbery incident in and around February 2020 on his farm. He equally does not deny that the money stolen details the bandied cash amount of US$4million. His explanation for such a large amount of foreign currency in his personal possession on his private farm is that this makes up proceeds of sold livestock.

Ramaphosa does not disown the claims that the perpetrators were captured and tortured; thus, his silence is an admission of a concealed crime. Furthermore, he does not deny the role of a domestic worker in the incident. He also does not deny or dispute the details of not reporting the case.

Ramaphosa’s apparent clarification renders us carceral to ask more obvious questions. Is any South African citizen allowed to have a foreign currency of that size in their possession in their private capacity? Suppose it was not foreign currency. What is the accepted amount of South African currency any South African is permitted to have in his private possession in cash? We also know that the alleged U$4million by all standards supersedes the acceptable amount of currency a person may have in cash.

Moving from the premise of accepting his explanation for the cash, we are none the wiser in knowing if these constituted singular or multiple transactions? We warrant knowing how transactions of this calibre usually are handled and recorded as it relates to the selling of livestock. Do they normatively occur in cash? Would bank transfers between seller and buyer and instances where auctions take place not be the order of the day since it must accommodate a paper trail for accountability and taxation expressions. As someone noted indeed, Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm, as many agree, is not an ordinary farm but constitutes part of the Stud Game Breeders Group. In a social media post, Baas Kruger notes: “Stud game breeders rules of auction state that auction sales are conducted by credit/ debit notices & doesn’t allow cash sales. Acting on behalf of the seller, the auctioneer will then collect payment electronically from the buyer, prior to the delivery of the purchased item.” So while we do not doubt the value of transactions, the subject of the payment method,  in this instance, cash, raises more than red flags. In the crudest sense, it pits Ramaphosa as having lied about the U$4m in his possession in origin.

We also do not know for how long after the alleged claim of ‘sale of livestock’ this money was in Ramaphosa’s possession on his private farm. Ordinarily, one would expect that within 24hours of any cash sale, the proceeds is banked in any of his designated accounts for such transactions. We are none the wiser about Ramaphosa’s status with SARS if SARS and its administration are first aware. Secondly, we arrant knowing if the President and SARS entered any possible special legal and legitimate concession to ensure he is not implicated in any financial crime. Naturally, the question arises what is Ramaphosa’s status with the banking sector related to currency exchange.

Section 28 of the FIC Act requires that accountable and reporting institutions to report cash transactions above the prescribed limit of R24999.99 to the FIC as soon as it is aware of the cash threshold transaction but not later than two days after becoming aware of the same. The Reporting of cash transactions above the prescribed limit provides a mechanism to proactively monitor and report cash transactions that may be linked to money laundering activities so that potential proceeds of crime are identified and investigated.
Cash is defined in Section 1  of the FIC act as:
(a)       Coin and paper money of the Republic of another country designated as legal tender and circulates as and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issue.
(b)       Traveller’s cheques
We also know that physical cash payments in excess of the threshold amount received by the affected accountable institution must be reported.

Is it possible that Ramaphosa’s choice not to open a case following the incident was inspired by him running the risk of having to explain very uncomfortable but pertinent questions of the theft at his farm? Questions of the source of this US$4million, why he had such in his personal possession. It would ask questions about measures he took to keep the money safe and what transpired when he arrested the robbers. These are all critical questions that he could not escape clarifying.

Fraser’s affidavit details how the President opted to deal with the robbery with the following words, “The incident was not officially reported to the police to investigate. We may only surmise it’s for that reason that he opted to take refuge in his Head of Protection, who is a police officer. The Head of the Presidential Protection Unit, Major–General Wally Rhoode,  is responsible for the President’s safety, not his various possessions. However, President Ramaphosa instructed Major–General Rhoode to investigate the incident immediately, apprehend the suspects and retrieve the stolen US$. The fact that the President, in soberness of mind, could opt not to open a case but repurpose the role and function of the Head of the Presidential Protection Unit to an investigative function is cause for great concern. We can argue that the President abused his constitutionally afforded power to repurpose the role of the Head of the Protection Unit.

Confusing the distinct roles of the Head of the Presidential Protection Unit with that of an investigative function must point to someone who has clear ulterior intention to subvert the law, as to why he would not open a case. Furthermore, in instructing the apprehending of the perpetrators, the President opened himself up to accountability should anything have happened to the perpetrators. The choice to bring the perpetrators back to the crime scene, interrogate and torture them rendered the President’s farm a double crime scene. Why would any law-abiding citizen let alone constitutional head not trust the SAPS to their work? Is this behaviour what South Africans must emulate from the President?

Ramaphosa’s statement, as relayed by Magwenya, in explaining his logic for not opening a case is another challenging aspect. We heard from his John Perlman interview that Ramaphosa did not report the case because his head of protection is a police officer, and he left it with him to handle. A secondary, more troublesome explanation for not opening a case for the robbery is explained by Ramaphosa as he did not want to cause alarm with his neighbours. This right here is not the actions of a law-abiding logical mind,  but someone who was acting not in the interest of justice to himself nor to his neighbours. Naturally, the South African Police must periodically make available crime statistics. This crime that details armed robbery and possible attempted murder had the robbers met up with resistance in committing the crime is not part of the 2020 crime statistics.

What are the implications of not reporting serious crime? What does it mean that a head of State, a constitutional being, sees no need to report a crime and have his neighbours access information about what happened in the vicinity? While Ramaphosa takes easy refuge in the fact that his head of protection is a police officer, he cannot assume that the crime is handled purely because of the designation of the Head of Protection. Ramaphosa neither can abdicate responsibility to report a crime committed on his farm nor against those who stole his cash. It is also clear that Ramaphosa knowing Fraser’s categoric assertion of having availed to the police photos, bank accounts, and names., had no choice but to concede to the now public knowledge of these incidents on his farm.

Incidentally, the Fraser statement comes in the week that Ramaphosa took the entire Cabinet to his Phala Phala farm to engage on economic solutions and what to do with Eskom’s current State. We cannot help but ask why Ramaphosa decided to take the Cabinet to a crime scene where as can be seen from Fraser and Ramaphosa’s statementst a slew of crimes occurred.

What does Ramaphosa stand accused off? Fraser’s case and its charges against, among others, accuse Ramaphosa of defeating the ends of justice, kidnapping suspects, interrogation suspects on his property, and subsequent bribery. He is categorically clear that the President concealed the crime from the South African Police Service and South African Revenue Services (“SARS”) and thereafter paid the culprits for their silence.” Defeating the ends of justice is a severe charge to any ordinary citizen. It gets more challenging for someone holding a constitutional office as President, a custodian of justice. The case thus deals with several counts.

In an IOL report, we read that it was custom for Ramaphosa to keep large stashes of cash on this farm. The money would be stashed under his mattress and couches. While one cannot verify the authenticity of the claims of the exact amount he kept, the INL report talks of U$80, around R1,2bn.

Why should NDPP Advocate Shamila Batohi prosecute?

Under our laws, the power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings on behalf of the  State  (and to discontinue criminal proceedings)  vests n the NPA. section 20 of the NPA Act. In practice, decisions in most courts on a   day-to-day basis are taken by prosecutors with delegated authority National  Director.  In more complex matters, the NDPP Batohi will be involved in the decision-making process and he may even make the decision herself. But it is highly unlikely that she will authorize the prosecution of the President who appointed her.  She would be aware that a decision to charge Ramaphosa would implicate the ANC step-aside rule and may result in him relinquishing the ANC presidency on the eve of the 2022 ANC elective conference.

The detailed evidence submitted by Fraser constitutes a prima facie case, which is enough evidence that calls for a rebuttal from the accused. If not rebutted before the court under oath it becomes conclusive evidence on which the court may convict the accused. Ramaphosa’s spin-doctoring is insufficient to refute the substantial evidence supplied by Fraser.

        The FIC Act’s undeniable contravention relates to how much any individual can keep rendered as R24999.99.
        The possibility of gross and deliberate failure of the President not to report the original incident of robbery.
        The fact that the President abused his constitutional powers to repurpose for his ulterior reasons the role and function of the PPU. Major – General Wally Rhoode into an investigator. The latter, who acted on instruction from a sitting president, was accused of complying with such repurposing.
        The fact that the President was part of a conspired plan to take the law into his own hands, in the form of vigilantism in seeking to apprehend the perpetrators, even as it is claimed he was party to kidnap some and bringing them back to the farm where they were subjected to violence
        The fact that Ramaphosa stands accused of having paid all five men and his domestic worker each R150,000.00 to but their silence on the incident and the subsequent events.
        Did Major-General Wally Rhoode also get paid for his role and silence in this crime?
        The claim that President Ramaphosa broke international law to contact his Namibian counterpart for Major–General Wally Rhoode, to get to Namibia to trace one of the suspects, interrogate him and seize some of the money stolen from his farm and bring it back to South Africa. This incident does not detail any threat to the President but is about his belongings. Ordinarily, the role of the PPU would engage in instances where the safety of the President is at risk.
Major General Rhooode owes South Africa a report as to what this assignment contains and the costs and outcomes for such.

        The President used public funds to assign a civil servant, Major-General Rhoode, to investigate the personal interest issues of the President in a foreign country.

In conclusion, the most recent communication from the President on this matter sees him saying he will no longer engage the subject. This is arrogance and obdurance because the President is answerable to us, and he cannot unilaterally decide when we stop seeking clarifications. This is an unfolding case, and he is the accused. Therefore should cooperate and not attempt to dictate outcomes. Ramaphosa believes he just about can do anything, and he will survive it. We have news for Ramaphosa that we will be demanding answers, and he is not going to play us with a delaying Batohi who will not prosecute him.

South Africans know that Ramaphosa always considered his personal interest superior to everything, be it organisation or country. Today, they know that the President can break the law and arrogantly assume he has a right to close an active debate in which he owes us answers. Today, South Africans know Ramaphosa does not represent any accountability or transparency, just as he never owned up to Marikana and had his funding records sealed until now. He is a president accused of bribing the alleged criminals who robbed him to ensure their silence. One who believes he is entitled to have foreign currency in millions.

Someone asked why the same journalists, media, and foundations obsessed with hunting Jacob Zuma to his grave are not expending any energy to keep Ramaphosa accountable. Ramaphosa has his own Bell Pottinger crowd of embedded journalists, making up a slice of mainstream media who practice this jaundiced and ambivalent morality daily. This group makes up many associated with the vocal,  Helen Suzman, Nelson Mandela, FUL, CASAC, and AKF foundations. They also include some related to the eNCA, NewsRoom Afrika, Daily Maverick, Sunday Times, and City Press, including hired academics, clergy,  Mandela, and 101 Bitter Puppies of ANC Veterans. The latter daily turn a blind eye to the wrongs of their darling.

Unfortunately, this is a morally repugnant president prone to be corrupt in his ways and arrogant enough to assume he can shut us up because someone in the ANC told the world that without Ramaphosa, there is no future for the organisation and country.

Is the unravelling attitude and conduct of the Ramaphosa not what von Mises described when he concluded, “There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, and vile men.”?

*Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
Political Analyst, Social and Economic Justice Activist, Strategy Design Consultant and Writer