S Africa detains 2 people connected to cash theft at president’s farm

South African police announced on Monday that they have apprehended two individuals in relation to a break-in at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s farmhouse, which evolved into a significant scandal, endangering his position.

The two suspects, aged 39 and 30, have been detained on charges of breaking and entering as well as theft. They are scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday, as confirmed by police spokeswoman Katlego Mogale.

The apprehensions occurred in Rustenburg and Bela Bela, two towns situated to the west and north of Pretoria, with the first arrest taking place on Sunday and the second on Monday, as relayed by Mogale. Additionally, she mentioned that a third arrest is expected to happen soon.

The purported theft that occurred in 2020 led to accusations against Ramaphosa of attempting to conceal the incident.

In the previous year, an independent panel determined that he “may have committed” significant infractions and misconduct in his management of the matter.

However, parliament subsequently voted against commencing impeachment proceedings, which could have compelled his removal from office.

The scandal surfaced in June 2022, when the nation’s former spy chief filed a complaint with the police, alleging that Ramaphosa had concealed a substantial stash of foreign currency stolen from his Phala Phala farm instead of reporting it to the authorities.

The accusation gave rise to concerns about money laundering and corruption. However, Ramaphosa, who assumed office with a promise of a “new dawn” following the scandal-ridden tenure of former President Jacob Zuma, steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.

Ramaphosa conceded to investigators that a sum exceeding half a million dollars, hidden beneath sofa cushions, had been pilfered. However, he contended that the money constituted payment for buffaloes acquired by a Sudanese businessman.

In August, South Africa’s anti-corruption watchdog cleared the president of accusations that he had violated executive ethics, determining that his handling of the case did not contravene the constitution.

Scroll to Top