Cape Town - The origins of Imanuwela David’s nationality, the alleged mastermind in the farmgate million-dollar heist at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm, have been flagged as cause for further investigation by Namibia’s former head of the police's Criminal Investigations Directorate commissioner Nelius Becker in his report.
David, who is referred to in the report as “ID”, is South African, according to his passport and identity document.
He is the only local allegedly connected to the robbery at Ramaphosa’s farm, which saw the theft of about $4 million (more than R61m) “concealed” in furniture by a gang of Namibians working with the domestic worker.
David was allegedly a former SA National Defence Force (SANDF) member, the report also stated.
“After the arrest of ID some information surfaced that the family of ID hails from the Olukekete area in Namibia. The father of the subject is from Oshindombe village in Ohangwena Region. (He is a) former South West Africa Territorial Force (SWATF) and went to South Africa after Independence and came back to Namibia after he retired or resigned from his work in RSA. He passed on some years back.
“ID was suspectedly born in Lüderitz, Namibia, where he went to school and after failing Grade 10 left school and Lüderitz in 2001. In 2005, he allegedly left Namibia and followed his father to South Africa where he later enlisted in the SADF.
“He was allegedly working in the Mpumalanga area and guarding borders. He then resigned from the SADF,” read the report.
The SANDF was approached for comment but did respond by the time of publication.
Provided with his passport number that the Cape Times has in its possession, the Department of Home Affairs also did not respond to questions around David’s citizenship by deadline.
Former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser, opened a criminal case against Ramaphosa at the Rosebank Police Station last week, saying: “The mere fact that President Ramaphosa had large undisclosed sums of foreign currency in the form of US dollars concealed in his furniture at his Phala Phala residence is prima facie proof of money laundering in contravention of section 4 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act No 121 of 1998 (Poca).”
While Ramaphosa has admitted the theft did happen, he has not come clean about all the details, despite mounting pressure from opposition parties, civic organisations and the public.
Ramaphosa also has a case to answer after the African Transformation Movement (ATM), lodged a complaint with the office of Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane before Ramaphosa suspended her a day later.
The ATM has now written to acting Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka to raise concerns about how their complaint against Ramaphosa would be handled following the questionably timed suspension of Mkhwebane.
“Following the suspension of Public Protector Advocate Mkhwebane by the president the very next day after this announcement by your office, the ATM is anxious that perhaps these two events are related on a causal-effect basis,” ATM president and MP, Vuyo Zungula said.
The organisation asked Gcaleka to respond directly to questions, around whether Mkhwebane's suspension was not related to the fact that she is investigating the Ramaphosa.
“Can you give a categoric response as regards the ATM's anxiety that the timing of the suspension of advocate Mkhwebane is not related to the fact that she is investigating the president? We say so because in our view, the s194(3)(a) trigger kicks in only when the removal process is activated.
“At this stage the Parliament committee is still to determine her fitness to hold office, which in our view is not interchangeable with a removal process, unless it's common cause that the whole process is a fait accompli,” said Zungula in his letter.
He further wanted confirmation that Gcaleka was confident she would meet “the 30 days deadline as required by the EMEA (Executive Members Ethics Act)”.
Approached for comment, public protector spokesperson Oupa Segalwe said they would respond to the ATM.
Leader of the ACDP, the Reverend Kenneth Meshoe, yesterday also questioned the timing of Mkhwebane’s suspension.
While Sars and the South African Reserve Bank have yet to publicly confirm if they would investigate Ramaphosa, Parliament yesterday said National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula declined UDM and ATM’s request for Ramaphosa to be placed on leave.
The UDM requested a parliamentary investigation into the alleged conduct of Ramaphosa, including placing him on sabbatical leave, while the ATM requested an establishment of a Section 89 committee for a removal inquiry.
Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said: “The Speaker declined the UDM's submission on the grounds that it did not constitute or was not accompanied by a substantive motion envisaged in the rules for this particular inquiry to be initiated, and that there existed no legal basis for Parliament to compel the president to take leave. For Parliament to undertake such an inquiry, there must be a basis in the Constitution, the law or rules which the Assembly would rely upon. The UDM has not made such a case.
“Similarly, the ATM’s request did not constitute nor was it accompanied by a substantive motion for a Section 89 inquiry to be initiated, as required in the Rules. The rules further indicate that such a motion must be limited to a formulated and substantiated charge, and all evidence for consideration must be attached. These requirements were not complied with in the ATM’s submission. Further, there was no provision in the Executive Members' Ethics Act (1998) for the referral to the National Assembly of allegations of breaches by the president.”
Cape Times