Ramaphosa accuses Phala Phala panel of relying on 'unlawful hearsay' evidence

"Relying on conjecture and speculation," was one of the phrases used by Ramaphosa to describe the panel's findings.

The three-member panel, led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found Ramaphosa could possibly have violated the Constitution and said he has "a case to answer" on four charges.

Ramaphosa, who has approached the Constitutional Court for a judicial review of the findings, attacked the credibility and legality of the evidence submitted to the panel.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa says he had 'no duty' to report Phala Phala theft

He argued that the panel failed to test the evidence for admissibility in terms of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.

Ramaphosa questioned the panel’s use of the basic rules of evidence, including the inadmissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully and the default rule that hearsay evidence is excluded, with regard to certain exclusions to the rule in the Act.

Ramaphosa listed examples of the evidence submitted to the panel which he argued was illegally obtained and therefore inadmissible. It included unspecified audio interviews of an alleged interrogation and confidential SAPS and Namibian police reports.

"As a result, the panel made conclusions, based on hearsay statements, without regard to the law,” he said in the court papers.

The statements and report filed by former spy boss Arthur Fraser were also challenged, with Ramaphosa lambasting the panel for allowing it to be presented "with a slanted picture emanating from obscure sources".

ALSO READ: Parliament studying president's review papers, says Mapisa-Nqakula

While failing to test the veracity of the evidence, Ramaphosa accused the panel of making "rushed decisions based on half-truths".

He labeled Mr Fraser's allegations as hearsay with the probative value of statements based on someone else's credibility.

"All they had was Mr Fraser's say-so."

It is not for the Constitutional Court to test the evidence - and Ramaphosa acceded to this in his court papers as well. He however stressed that this was a "fatal" exercise for the panel, as it was duty-bound to only consider relevant evidence.