President Cyril Ramaphosa has been exonerated of allegations of misusing state resources by using a South African National Defence Force (SANDF) helicopter to attend an ANC campaign event, according to the public protector report.
The complaint, which stated that Ramaphosa’s use of the SANDF helicopter constituted an abuse of power, was brought to the public protector’s attention in October 2022.
A potential conflict of interest between his official duties and political activities was brought up in the complaint.
The report did mention that the Presidency had pre-approved the president’s safety and security during the trip to and from the ANC Letsema campaign in Welkom in accordance with SAAF guidelines.
Right to extensive security measures
The report also disclosed, according to public protector Kholeka Gcaleka, that the SAAF duly filed and processed the air travel request, stressing that they followed the procedures outlined in the Presidential Handbook.
“On analysis of the air travel request, it is not required for the Presidency to divulge the purpose of the trip or to distinguish between private and public engagements, reads the report.
“The SAAF is merely obligated to transport the president by air and ensure his safety and comfort until the SAPS [SA Police Service] takes over when he lands at the destination stated in the air travel request.”
The report’s main conclusions emphasise that Ramaphosa always had a right to extensive security measures because he was the head of state and the supreme SANDF commander.
Allegation is not substantiated
In her conclusion, the public protector said there was no substantial evidence indicating that the Ramaphosa’s use of the SAAF helicopter constituted a violation of constitutional provisions regarding the use of state resources.
“The allegation that the president abused his powers and state resources when he used the SANDF helicopter to attend an ANC campaign, thereby exposing himself to a situation involving the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests in violation of the constitution, is not substantiated.
“Accordingly, the conduct of the president does not constitute improper conduct as envisaged in Section 182[1][a] of the constitution and Section 6[4][a][ii] of the Public Protector Act,” according to the report.
