Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen stated on Friday that his party will be consulting with its lawyers to take the Public Protector’s report on the Phala Phala issue on review as it believes it contains a number of misinterpretations of relevant pieces of legislation.

The report also presented a worrying lack of evidence that the Office of the Public Protector itself had seemingly failed to source, said Steenhuisen.

The Office of the Public Protector has cleared President Cyril Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in the Phala Phala scandal, finding that he fulfilled his obligations to declare his interests in his farms and report the matter to the police.

In her report, acting Public Protector advocate Koleka Gcaleka said there was no evidence that Ramaphosa had active involvement in paid work, and there was no basis to conclude that he contravened the Executive Ethics Code. It meant that he was not exposed to the risk of a conflict of interest.

Steenhuisen alleged that Gcaleka’s report on allegations of a violation of the Executive Members Ethics Act by Ramaphosa was nothing more than a whitewash of the entire “sordid” Phala Phala scandal.

“Given that Adv Gcaleka is vying for the top job within the Office of the Public Protector, her report today read more like a job interview than a concluded investigation. By burying the merits of this investigation in legal jargon and semantics, and contorting the law in her interpretation of both the Executive Members Ethics Act and the Constitution, she has attempted to paint President Cyril Ramaphosa as nothing more than an innocent bystander to the Phala Phala scandal, oblivious to the workings of the Presidential Protection Services, his responsibilities as the head of South Africa’s national executive, and his duty as the first citizen of the nation,” he explained.

He said this report could only be described as a pro-Ramaphosa public relations exercise.

Steenhuisen said it was concerning to note the discrepancies between the Nkandla Report, whose interpretation of similar laws found that former President Jacob Zuma was severely compromised as President of the Republic, yet Ramaphosa is seemingly assessed by different standards.

The DA noted that it would be asking its lawyers to consult the Nkandla Report for any potential legal precedent that can be used to point out the discrepancies in Gcaleka’s findings.

“Should the Office of the Public Protector indeed be captured, the DA will work tirelessly to ensure that our democratic institutions are rid of any political influence to ensure that the principles of accountability and equality before the law are always upheld,” he added.