Key Takeaways
- Lieutenant‑General Godfrey Lebeya testified that private investigator Paul O Sullivan called him seeking an update on the Hawks’ Phala Phala investigation while claiming to be with President Cyril Ramaphosa’s adviser, Dr Bejani Chauke.
- Lebeya stated he had no authority to share investigative progress with O Sullivan and refused the request, noting the investigator provided no legal basis for the inquiry.
- The Phala Phala scandal stems from a February 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s Limpopo game farm, where roughly R10.7 million was allegedly concealed in a sofa.
- An Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) report completed in October 2023 was initially classified “Top Secret” and only declassified on 2 February 2026 after sustained pressure.
- A Section 89 independent panel chaired by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious constitutional and anti‑corruption violations, but Parliament rejected the report in 2022 via an ANC majority vote.
- The Constitutional Court overturned that parliamentary decision in May 2026, declaring the vote irrational and unconstitutional, thereby reviving the impeachment process.
- Ramaphosa is now pursuing a judicial review of the panel’s findings, and the matter remains under active scrutiny.
Introduction to Lieutenant‑General Godfrey Lebeya’s Testimony
Lieutenant‑General Godfrey Lebeya, the former head of the Hawks (the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation), appeared before the commission on Thursday to give evidence concerning the ongoing Phala Phala investigation. His testimony focused on an unsolicited telephone call he received from private investigator Paul O Sullivan. Lebeya’s account is significant because it sheds light on the interactions between law‑enforcement officials, private investigators, and individuals close to the presidency during a period of heightened political tension. The commission sought to clarify whether O Sullivan had a legitimate basis for requesting case details and whether any improper influence was exerted on the Hawks’ investigative process.
The Phone Call from Paul O Sullivan
According to Lebeya, O Sullivan phoned him and asked for a progress report on the Hawks’ handling of the Phala Phala matter. During the conversation, O Sullivan informed Lebeya that he was “sitting with his friend who’s a doctor,” later identified as Dr Bejani Chauke, who at the time served as an adviser to President Cyril Ramaphosa. Lebeya recalled O Sullivan saying, “I just need progress of this status of the case,” indicating a desire for an update on the investigation’s developments. The call thus placed Lebeya in a position where he had to weigh a request from a private citizen who claimed proximity to the presidential inner circle.
Lebeya’s Response and Perception of Authority
Lebeya testified that O Sullivan did not explain why he was seeking the information or in what capacity he was making the request. He said he felt compelled to respond only because someone else appeared to be asking for the status, but he remained uneasy about providing details. Importantly, Lebeya stated that he believed O Sullivan had no legal authority to receive information about an ongoing DPCI investigation, emphasizing that “they have got nothing to do with that. I can’t report to any other person about the progress of matters in the DPCI.” He added that he did not pursue the matter further because he knew O Sullivan was not a lawyer and therefore lacked the requisite standing to demand confidential case updates.
Context of the Phala Phala Investigation
The Phala Phala scandal centers on a burglary that occurred in February 2020 at President Ramaphosa’s private game farm in Limpopo. Allegedly, about R10.7 million in cash was hidden inside a sofa at the property and subsequently stolen. The incident raised immediate questions about the source of the funds, possible violations of financial disclosure rules, and whether the money constituted illicit proceeds. The Hawks, as South Africa’s premier anti‑corruption unit, were tasked with investigating the burglary and any associated criminal conduct, including potential breaches of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.
Classification and Declassification of the IPID Report
An Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) inquiry into the burglary was completed in October 2023. The report’s findings were deemed highly sensitive, leading then‑Police Minister Senzo Mchunu to classify it “Top Secret.” This classification restricted public access and fueled speculation about the report’s content. After sustained pressure from civil society, opposition parties, and media outlets, the IPID report was finally declassified on 2 February 2026. The declassification allowed broader scrutiny of the investigative conclusions and intensified calls for accountability regarding both the burglary and the subsequent handling of the case by law‑enforcement agencies.
Section 89 Panel Findings and Parliamentary Rejection
In response to the growing controversy, a Section 89 independent panel was convened, chaired by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. The panel’s mandate was to examine whether President Ramaphosa had committed serious constitutional violations or breached anti‑corruption legislation in relation to the Phala Phala affair. After reviewing evidence, the panel concluded that there was prima facie indication that the president may have committed such violations. Despite this finding, Parliament rejected the panel’s report in 2022, with an ANC majority voting against proceeding with any impeachment or further investigative steps. The rejection was widely criticized as a partisan move that undermined the accountability mechanisms enshrined in the Constitution.
Constitutional Court Intervention and Revival of Impeachment
The parliamentary decision did not go unchallenged. In May 2026, the Constitutional Court heard an application challenging the lawfulness of the ANC’s vote to dismiss the Section 89 report. The Court ruled that the parliamentary vote was irrational and unconstitutional, stating that the legislature had failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to consider the panel’s findings adequately. Consequently, the Court overturned the rejection, effectively reviving the impeachment process and mandating that Parliament reconsider the matter in accordance with constitutional provisions. This judgment marked a pivotal moment, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a check on legislative overreach in high‑profile accountability cases.
Ramaphosa’s Judicial Review and Ongoing Proceedings
Following the Constitutional Court’s ruling, President Ramaphosa announced that he would pursue a judicial review of the Section 89 panel’s findings. His legal team argues that the panel’s conclusions are based on insufficient evidence and that the process violated procedural fairness. As of the latest updates, the review proceedings are underway, with both sides presenting arguments and evidence before the high court. The outcome of this review could either uphold the panel’s prima facie findings, potentially leading to further parliamentary action, or invalidate them, thereby alleviating immediate impeachment pressures on the president.
Implications for Hawks, O Sullivan, and Chauke
Lebeya’s testimony also highlights the delicate relationship between law‑enforcement agencies and private actors who claim connections to the presidency. His refusal to disclose investigative progress to O Sullivan underscores the Hawks’ commitment to maintaining the confidentiality of ongoing DPCI investigations, irrespective of external pressure. The episode has prompted complaints against Lebeya, including allegations linked to O Sullivan’s conduct, which the commission is examining. Meanwhile, Dr Bejani Chauke’s transition from a paid political adviser to an unpaid Special Envoy for Strategic Relations and Investment illustrates the blurred lines between official governmental roles and informal advisory positions, a dynamic that continues to attract scrutiny in the Phala Phala saga. The unfolding developments will likely influence future protocols governing how senior officials handle information requests from private individuals, especially those with perceived ties to the executive branch.