Staff Reporter
Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema says his party decided not to disrupt President Cyril Ramaphosa’s State of the Nation Address on Thursday because he complied with the red beret’s call to publicly explain himself on the R500,000 his presidential campaign received as a donation from controversial facilities company Bosasa.
IN PICTURES: Ceremonious arrivals at SONA2019
The EFF had initially threatened to turn Ramaphosa’s address into a question-and-answer session if the president did not come clean on Bosasa.
President Cyril Ramaphosa delivers the 2019 State of the Nation Address.
“After the press conference of the EFF, the president had an interview with eNCA, answered the questions and went to the Public Protector [Busisiwe Mkhwebane] including releasing the statement he released to the public protector. This is the president who is saying to all of us, I am available to account. That’s what we’ve been saying, the president must account and if he is not going to account for [the] Bosasa issue, we’re going to ask him here [in Parliament].
“So why ask him here when he has accounted? I mean we don’t have time for the flat heads. We made this point very clear, the man must account and if he doesn’t account, he will account in Parliament. He accounted. That’s why the EFF was happy to sit and listen. We may not be happy with the answer, but he has answered unlike the arrogance of the previous regime,” said Malema.
READ: Ramaphosa announces 8 May for General Elections
Ramaphosa has been under pressure in recent weeks to come clean on his involvement with Bosasa. He also reportedly could not give back the
R500,000 Bosasa donation, after it emerged that the money was actually from a third party.
SONA 2019 in Parliament, Cape Town.
News24 reported that forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan said, the “CR17” campaign has placed the money in a separate attorney’s trust account – that of Harris Nupen Molebatsi Attorneys – pending a finalisation as to what should legally happen to the funds.
O’Sullivan said that the ‘third party’ was in liquidation, and that it was now clear that the bank account was operated unlawfully.
