DA, EFF unconvinced by PP report on Phala Phala
The DA and the EFF have both questioned the decision by acting Public Protector Khaleka Gcaleka to clear President Cyril Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in her preliminary report on the Phala Phala saga.
On Saturday, the Office of the Public Protector confirmed that the report was delivered to Ramaphosa and other affected and implicated parties and that they have been given an opportunity to respond.
While the disclosure of the contents of the report is prohibited by law, several political parties have slammed the findings.
The EFF has labelled the findings of the report as "predictable".
"The acting public protector, who has taken almost 9 months to produce a report has stalled and delayed the process of producing the Phala Phala report, because she knew full well that she would produce an outcome that is at odds with basic logic and objective reality," says EFF spokesperson Leigh-Ann Mathys.
"The so-called report compiled by Gcaleka is nothing but an affirmation of the distortions that Cyril Ramaphosa has uttered on public platforms to avoid accountability.
"It is clear that the Office of the Public Protector is compromised."
"The EFF will relentlessly ensure that Ramaphosa is held accountable for the crimes he committed at Phala Phala Farm through Parliament and on the picket lines."
Meanwhile, DA leader John Steenhuisen says he believes the report reflects a worrying misunderstanding of his party's complaint.
"The report contains a number of inherent contradictions, and the public protector has outsourced much of the investigatory work to the South African Revenue Service and the South African Reserve Bank where it will be cloaked in secrecy.
"None of this provides the necessary transparency and accountability to the republic to conduct oversight over its president.
"We also believe that the public protector has misunderstood the nature of the conflict of interest raised, and has thus compiled a preliminary report which is not congruent with, or reflective of, the complaint which was lodged."
Steenhuisen says the DA will submit its representations to the public protector.
"What the content of this preliminary report highlights, however, is that there may now exist a clear conflict between the findings of the Public Protector and the Section 89 Independent Panel.
"What this means for South Africans is that the water of truth is being muddied and that we are no closer to getting to the bottom of this debacle."
READ ALSO: