3. The big question about where the money came from i.e. the clarification from the Presidency that it was from the sale of animals, seems to be disputed in the letter.
You will see in the letter that one of the President’s closest advisors was “… ostensibly instrumental in illegally bringing large sums of US $ into South Africa for both he and the President after returning from trips he undertook on behalf of President Ramaphosa to various countries, inter alia, including, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco and Equatorial Guinea.”
This spine-chilling allegation, if true, shows that we are in much greater trouble than we thought if South African citizens can so easily transport foreign currency across our borders.
4. It is clear that the veracity of the information provided, and the allegations made, in the letter should be investigated by the Independent Panel. The Hawks should shed some light on what has transpired in terms of their actions taken subsequent to receiving this additional information. Such steps will surely be of assistance to the Independent Panel and their work.
5. There appears to be a concerted effort, either with the knowledge and blessing of the President or only in his name, to distort information and cover-up what really happened at the time of the alleged robbery and any subsequent actions (or inaction) taken by the various stakeholders to cover up the incident.
6. After having read the information in this letter, it has become more apparent that, if it had not been for this Independent Panel’s formation and expected work, this whole incident might have been somehow swept under the carpet.
Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP
President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin2022-10-24T16:41:54+02:00October 24th, 2022|2022 Archive, Bantu Holomisa, Home, Open Letters|Comments Off on Preliminary inquiry by the Section 89 Independent Panel: submission in terms of the invitation for members of the National Assembly