In many high court matters, Wim Trengove SC does not seem to argue before judges as much as lead them through a lecture.
The judges listen. Trengove builds the proposition, identifies the principle, applies the facts and arrives at the conclusion. Interjections are often brief.
The Phala Phala interdict hearing was different.
The judges repeatedly stopped him, tested his reading of the independent panel report and returned to questions he appeared to regard as settled. At one point, the bench told him it was evident that the panel had considered Ramaphosa’s affidavit.
Trengove accepted that the panel had read and recited parts of Ramaphosa’s evidence but insisted that it had not weighed his version against the accusations.
The court pressed again. Was Ramaphosa saying his evidence should carry more weight simply because he was present and knew what happened?
Trengove defended the president’s “indignation”.
“I was there; I know what happened. Let me tell you what happened,” he said, describing the position from Ramaphosa’s perspective.
One of the country’s finest advocates
Trengove remains one of the country’s finest advocates. The unusual pressure he faced may say less about his performance than about the difficulty of turning the Phala Phala facts into a neat legal proposition.
With the main review application, known as Part B, still to come, Ramaphosa could spare his legal team another strenuous exercise.
He could call a family meeting and answer the independent panel’s questions one by one.
Not a statement saying he respects the law. Not another assurance that he has cooperated with investigators.
The panel asked questions. Ramaphosa could supply the answer and supporting documents.
On Hazim Mustafa
The panel began with Hazim Mustafa, the Sudanese businessman who allegedly arrived at Phala Phala on Christmas Day in 2019 carrying at least $580 000.
“How did Mr Hazim know that there were buffaloes for sale on the farm?”
Was the sale advertised?
If Mustafa arrived without a prior arrangement, how did he know how much money to bring?
“How did he know that the purchase price would be US$580,000, unless he was carrying more than US$580,000 in cash?”
How did he physically carry it?
And why would a businessman transport more than half a million dollars in cash when customers could pay by electronic transfer?
“Why did Mr Hazim not pay by money transfer?”
These are not questions about the meaning of prima facie evidence. They require records.
Ramaphosa could produce the advertisement, messages, telephone records or correspondence showing how Mustafa learnt about the buffaloes.
What happened after the alleged sale?
The panel then turned to what happened after the alleged sale.
Why would Mustafa pay $580 000 and leave without the buffaloes?
Why did he not say when he would collect them?
Why did he not leave an address for delivery?
Who was responsible for veterinary, transport and export costs?
“Why would anyone pay such a huge sum of money in cash and thereafter leave the goods without indicating when he would come back to collect the buffaloes or leave an address for the delivery of the animals?”
The buffaloes remained at Phala Phala for more than two years.
The panel said that fact, the missing buyer details, the weak receipt and the absence of delivery arrangements raised “substantial doubt about the sale transaction itself”.
Ramaphosa could produce the sale agreement, export applications, veterinary documents and correspondence explaining why the animals remained on the farm.
Cash in the sofa
The panel’s questions about the cash were even more direct.
Was the money placed in the sofa with Ramaphosa’s knowledge?
When did Sylvester Ndlovu become concerned about leaving the money in the safe?
Why was it not banked before Ndlovu went on holiday on December 30?
“Why did the president not take the money to the bank in light of the concerns expressed by Mr Ndlovu and the fact that Mr Ndlovu was going away on holiday?”
Why did Ramaphosa not instruct Ndlovu to bank it while farm manager Hendrik von Wielligh was away?
When Ndlovu returned from holiday, did he remove it from the sofa and process the transaction?
If not, why not?
The panel also questioned the physical act of placing the money in the sofa.
It found that $580 000 left merely below cushions would have been visible. It considered it probable that someone turned the leather sofa over, opened its underside and placed the cash inside its frame.
“Why go through the process of turning the sofa upside down, opening it up and stuffing the inside of a sofa to store money that was destined for the bank shortly?”
Who placed it there?
When?
Who gave the instruction?
Who knew where it was?
Why did it remain there for more than 40 days?
The amount itself remains unresolved.
Ramaphosa’s version referred to $580 000. But information before the panel suggested that about $800 000 may have been stolen.
“Where did this additional foreign currency come from?”
The panel’s final questions moved beyond the private farm transaction.
Why was the burglary not reported under section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act?
Why was it not reported to any ordinary police officer for investigation?
Why did South African police ask Namibian police to handle the matter “with discretion”?
Why did the head of the Presidential Protection Unit become involved in the investigation of money belonging to a private business?
Ramaphosa may have complete answers.
He should give them.
If the answers and records settle every issue, the panel’s conclusions will appear unreasonable without Trengove having to labour over the distinction between sufficient and prima facie evidence.
- Advocate Wim Trengove faced intense judicial scrutiny during the Phala Phala interdict hearing, with judges repeatedly challenging his interpretation of the independent panel’s report on President Ramaphosa.
- The panel raised serious questions about the alleged $580,000 buffalo sale involving Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa, highlighting missing documentation, unclear transaction details, and the fact that the buffaloes remained on the farm for over two years.
- The panel also probed the handling of the cash found in the sofa, questioning why it was kept there, who placed it, and why it was not deposited in the bank despite concerns raised by officials.
- Discrepancies exist over the amount of money reportedly stolen, with Ramaphosa mentioning $580,000 but evidence suggesting closer to $800,000, alongside concerns about the investigation's unusual handling by police and security units.
- The article urges Ramaphosa to directly address the panel’s specific questions with supporting documents and records to clarify the transaction and cash-handling issues, potentially ending legal uncertainty and easing pressure on his legal team.
In many high court matters, Wim
“I was there; I know what happened. Let me tell you what happened,” he said, describing the position from Ramaphosa’s perspective.
He could call a family meeting and answer the independent panel’s questions one by one.
Not a statement saying he respects the law. Not another assurance that he has cooperated with investigators.
“How did Mr Hazim know that there were buffaloes for sale on the farm?”
Was the sale advertised?
If Mustafa arrived without a prior arrangement, how did he know how much money to bring?
“How did he know that the purchase price would be US$580,000, unless he was carrying more than US$580,000 in cash?”
How did he physically carry it?
“Why did Mr Hazim not pay by money transfer?”
Ramaphosa could produce the advertisement, messages, telephone records or correspondence showing how Mustafa learnt about the buffaloes.
Why would Mustafa pay $580 000 and leave without the buffaloes?
Why did he not say when he would collect them?
Why did he not leave an address for delivery?
Who was responsible for veterinary, transport and export costs?
“Why would anyone pay such a huge sum of money in cash and thereafter leave the goods without indicating when he would come back to collect the buffaloes or leave an address for the delivery of the animals?”
Ramaphosa could produce the sale agreement, export applications, veterinary documents and correspondence explaining why the animals remained on the farm.
Was the money placed in the sofa with Ramaphosa’s knowledge?
When did Sylvester
Why was it not banked before
“Why did the president not take the money to the bank in light of the concerns expressed by Mr
Why did Ramaphosa not instruct
When
If not, why not?
It found that $580 000 left merely below cushions would have been visible. It considered it probable that someone turned the leather sofa over, opened its underside and placed the cash inside its frame.
“Why go through the process of turning the sofa upside down, opening it up and stuffing the inside of a sofa to store money that was destined for the bank shortly?”
Who placed it there?
When?
Who gave the instruction?
Who knew where it was?
Why did it remain there for more than 40 days?
Ramaphosa’s version referred to $580 000. But information before the panel suggested that about $800 000 may have been stolen.
“Where did this additional foreign currency come from?”
Why was the burglary not reported under section 34 of the Prevention and
Why was it not reported to any ordinary police officer for investigation?
Why did
Why did the head of the Presidential Protection Unit become involved in the investigation of money belonging to a private business?
Ramaphosa may have complete answers.
He should give them.
If the answers and records settle every issue, the panel’s conclusions will appear unreasonable without
