The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has demanded that President Cyril Ramaphosa be held accountable for the alleged mishandling of a 2020 theft at his Phala Phala farm and has formally requested the Speaker of the National Assembly to initiate Section 89 impeachment proceedings against him.
This follows the release of a report by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), completed in 2023 and declassified in 2026, which examined the conduct of members of the Presidential Protection Services in response to the burglary. The report found that the theft was mishandled and recommended disciplinary action against Major General Wally Rhoode and Constable Hlulani Rekhoto for breaching police rules and legal obligations. IPID made no direct findings of wrongdoing against President Ramaphosa himself.
ATM spokesperson Zama Ntshona argued that the officers acted on the President’s instructions. “In the event that anything that should have happened has not happened, the president is liable for whatever has actually transpired,” Ntshona said. He pointed to an affidavit by General Rhoode stating that the President informed him of the crime and gave him an instruction. Ntshona described the President as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and emphasized that this should be viewed not merely as an administrative failure but potentially as a deliberate intent to conceal a crime.
President Ramaphosa, however, maintained that the IPID report cleared him. “The IPID report is what you will have read. I had nothing to do with it,” he stated, adding that processes must play themselves out through the relevant institutions.
ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip said the President still has explaining to do, particularly regarding undeclared foreign currency reportedly stolen from a couch on the farm. “There has been no proper explanation for that,” Trollip noted. He added that Ramaphosa must also account for why steps were not taken against Rhoode and others who pursued suspects, including a trip to Namibia, allegedly under the President’s instruction. Trollip welcomed the unfolding of due processes where the President would account to the nation.
Legal expert Advocate Modidima Mannya provided analysis on the legal framework. He clarified that while the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he is not commander-in-chief of the South African Police Service (SAPS) or other institutions like the Special Investigating Unit. The President appoints the National Commissioner of SAPS but cannot directly instruct rank-and-file officers, Mannya explained. The Presidential Protection Unit falls under SAPS structures and accounts to the police service, not the Presidency.
Mannya noted differing conclusions across investigations, including by SAPS, the Public Protector, and a parliamentary committee chaired by a retired judge. He highlighted concerns over multiple probes reaching contradictory outcomes on similar facts and stressed the need for efficient, integrated processes to maintain public confidence.
On the failure to officially report the theft through standard channels, Mannya observed that members of the Presidential Protection Unit should have reported the matter to SAPS, as investigating crime is outside their scope. He expressed curiosity about the use of state vehicles for travel to Namibia in what appeared to be an unauthorized operation, questioning how such resources crossed borders without proper authorization.
Mannya questioned why the matter has been limited to disciplinary recommendations rather than potential criminal proceedings by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), noting that basic elements in the report might suggest criminal offenses, though the full report’s sharing with the NPA remains unclear. He also criticized political parties for outsourcing oversight to external bodies instead of exercising their constitutional role through Parliament, where the President is elected and should be supervised.
The IPID report has reignited debate over the 2020 incident, the use of public resources for what was described as a private matter, and broader questions of accountability. A Constitutional Court judgment related to an earlier Section 89 process is expected soon, while calls continue for parliamentary review and further clarity on the handling of the case.