Publications
The Public Protector's preliminary investigation into the Phala Phala break-in has cleared President Cyril Ramaphosa of certain of the charges that a section 89 panel said he should face an impeachment inquiry over. Karyn Maughan looks at the two big differences in those reports.
Months after a section 89 panel which recommended that Cyril Ramaphosa should face an impeachment inquiry over the Phala Phala break-in and its alleged cover-up, Acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka has reached vastly different conclusions about the president's blameworthiness in the saga.
At the outset, it is important to stress Gcaleka's investigation was focused on determining whether Ramaphosa had violated the Executive Ethics Act in relation to the February 2020 burglary, which saw at least US$580 000 - which had been stuffed into a sofa in his home at the farm for weeks after an alleged buffalo sale - being stolen.
