Man guilty of stealing cash from farm owned by South African president

The court found Imanuwela David guilty of two offences linked to the 2020 burglary at Phala Phala farm: theft and conspiracy to commit housebreaking with intent to steal. Froliana Joseph, who worked as a cleaner at the property, was found guilty of the conspiracy offence. Her brother, Ndilinasho Joseph, was cleared of every charge.

The convictions separate the alleged taking of the cash from the alleged plan to enter the property unlawfully. David was accused of breaking into the farm and taking cash from a sofa. The court also found that he was the only convicted person who had any of the stolen money in his bank account.

The case is not finished. Sentencing has not yet occurred, and pre-sentencing proceedings are scheduled for 13 November. The convictions matter because the burglary became part of the wider Farmgate scandal involving President Cyril Ramaphosa and questions about how the theft was handled.

Housebreaking with intent to steal is a crime involving unlawful entry into a building, or breaking into it, with the purpose of stealing. The key issue is the planned purpose behind the entry. In this case, the charge concerned entering or planning to enter Phala Phala farm to take property.

Theft is different because it focuses on the property itself. It generally means taking or keeping someone else’s property without permission and intending to deprive the owner of it. David was convicted of theft after being accused of taking cash from a sofa. He was also convicted of the separate conspiracy charge.

The distinction allows a court to address different parts of the alleged conduct. A person can be accused of planning an unlawful entry, carrying it out, and taking property. Here, Froliana Joseph was convicted only of the conspiracy offence, while David was convicted of both theft and conspiracy.

The reported theft involved $580,000 in cash, equal to £432,000 in the article’s figures. The opening account describes the amount more broadly as more than $500,000, with a value of £372,822. The cash was allegedly taken from a sofa at Phala Phala farm in February 2020.

The article links David to a rapid spending spree after the burglary. It says he bought three Mercedes cars, including one for his girlfriend, a Porsche, two Volkswagens, diamond-encrusted Rolex watches, and a house. These purchases were presented as evidence surrounding the stolen money.

David rejected that explanation in court. He said his money came from businesses involving diamonds and Bitcoin, but the court rejected those claims. It also found that David was the only one of the two convicted people who had any of the stolen cash in his bank account. Sentencing will follow pre-sentencing proceedings on 13 November.

A burglary at a private property became a national political scandal because the property belonged to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The large cash haul raised questions beyond the alleged theft itself. The case became known as the Farmgate scandal and led to debate about presidential accountability.

The controversy became public in 2022, when former intelligence chief Arthur Fraser claimed Ramaphosa had hidden the theft from the police and tax authorities. Ramaphosa admitted that the theft happened but denied wrongdoing. An independent panel later found that he could have questions to answer over the burglary.

Parliament voted against establishing an impeachment inquiry, but the dispute continued. In May this year, the constitutional court ruled that parliament had acted unlawfully by shelving the panel’s report. In July, Ramaphosa blocked the parliamentary inquiry through a provincial court. The criminal convictions therefore sit alongside an unresolved political and constitutional dispute.

Arthur Fraser, South Africa’s former intelligence chief and an ally of former president Jacob Zuma, alleged that Cyril Ramaphosa hid the theft from the police and tax authorities. The allegation shifted attention from the suspected burglars to the president’s conduct after the cash disappeared.

Ramaphosa acknowledged that the theft took place at his farm. However, he denied wrongdoing. The article does not state that he admitted concealing the incident or breaking any law. That distinction became central to the public and political dispute surrounding the burglary.

An independent panel later found that Ramaphosa could have questions to answer over the burglary. MPs voted against creating an impeachment inquiry. The constitutional court subsequently ruled that parliament had acted unlawfully by shelving the panel’s report, while Ramaphosa blocked the parliamentary inquiry through a provincial court in July. The article presents the allegations as disputed, not as established criminal conduct by Ramaphosa.

Parliament is the national lawmaking body and, in this dispute, considered whether to establish an impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa. MPs voted against creating one. The article also says parliament shelved the independent panel’s report, a decision later challenged in court.

The independent panel examined the allegations surrounding the burglary and reported that Ramaphosa could have questions to answer. Its role was investigative and advisory in the dispute described here. It did not itself convict the people accused of stealing the cash; the criminal court handled those charges.

The constitutional court reviewed parliament’s treatment of the panel’s report. In May this year, it ruled that parliament had acted unlawfully by shelving the report. The article says Ramaphosa then blocked the parliamentary inquiry through a provincial court in July. These events show separate tracks: criminal proceedings against alleged burglars and political or constitutional scrutiny of presidential conduct.

When allegations involve a president personally, a constitutional democracy should separate fact-finding, political accountability, and criminal justice. Investigators examine the evidence. Parliament can debate conduct and consider procedures such as impeachment. Courts review legality and decide criminal charges according to law.

The Farmgate case illustrates those separate mechanisms. An independent panel examined the burglary and found Ramaphosa could have questions to answer. Parliament voted against an impeachment inquiry and shelved the report. The constitutional court later ruled that shelving it was unlawful. Separately, a criminal court convicted David and Froliana Joseph over the alleged break-in and theft.

These processes do not produce identical outcomes. A criminal conviction concerns specific offences and evidence. Parliamentary accountability concerns whether presidential conduct warrants political action. A constitutional court checks whether public bodies followed the law. In this dispute, the criminal case has reached convictions, while the political and legal consequences surrounding Ramaphosa remain contested in the article.