For the first time since its inception in 2018, mechanisms described in Section 89 of the African Constitution which allow for Presidential impeachment are being set into motion. This all occurred because of the current President’s proclivity to trade bulls.
The President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, is fighting against impeachment after hoarding and subsequently covering up the theft of large amounts of foreign currency. It has recently come to light that around four million dollars were purportedly stolen from a sofa at his private game farm, Phala Phala, in 2020. Dubbed the ‘Farmgate’ scandal, the political landscape of the South African elections in 2024 will hinge on this incident.
In June of this year, the former spy chief under Ramaphosa, Arthur Fraser, accused him of money laundering. He claimed that burglars had made off with up to $20 million from the Phala Phala, all of which was undeclared. According to South African law, large amounts of money may not be kept by individuals without requisite permissions from the centre.
Ramaphosa, 70, is currently being probed for breaching a part of the ‘Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act’ of 2004. An independent panel has accused him of “exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business” and has created a report supporting the same.
The President had failed to inform required authorities, such as the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, about the theft. Upon inquiry and many months after the transaction, Ramaphosa revealed that the assets had come in from the sale of cattle. He had further evaded taxes on this amount and misused state resources by appointing a presidential bodyguard to track down the stolen sum.
While Ramaphosa stated that the storage of money and subsequent theft did occur, he claims that the amount taken was far less than described in the report. He has not been charged with any criminal offence and has denied all transgressions. Ramaphosa further calls for the annulling of the report, which he describes as ‘unlawful’ and based on hearsay. Ironically, his presidential pitch cemented him as a constitutionalist who wanted to remove corruption from the governmental system. His principles were called into question as he took twenty-four hours when the report was made to consider resigning.
The Farmgate scandal does distract the nation from more practical issues, like the widespread unemployment and poverty seen after COVID-19 or the losses suffered from riots after former president Zuma’s imprisonment. While the scandal may just be a smokescreen to draw attention away from administrative inefficiency, it may also be a demonstration of anti-corruption or a power grab for opposition parties. The motivation behind the report remains speculative but its implications will be faced soon.
The African National Congress (ANC) party continues to back Ramaphosa and has said it will block impeachment attempts during the parliamentary vote. Prior to the findings of the report, Ramaphosa was the clear favourite to lead the ANC with a second term and run for presidential elections again. Having been in power for nearly thirty years, the ANC dominates in the parliament and makes the chances of a majority voting for impeachment unlikely. However, this report will be taken into account during the ANC’s conference scheduled for this month where a leader will be appointed for a period of five years. Amidst the internal power struggle in the ANC, Ramaphosa will continue to stand for re-election. Due to this, the process seems to ignore corruption and act as a nominal measure for justice.
However, regardless of whether Ramaphosa is politically retained or evicted, the ability to carry out impeachment proceedings underlines the power of the South African democracy.