South Africa’s watchdog provides accused Leader Cyril Ramaphosa of deceptive parliament plus potential cash laundering over the campaign monetary gift.
Mr Ramaphosa has earlier denied any kind of wrongdoing.
Their supporters state the accusations made by General public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane are usually politically inspired.
The scandal is seen as a part of a larger energy struggle inside the governing celebration, reports the particular BBC’s Toby Harding within Johannesburg.
A year ago, Mr Ramaphosa told parliament that he hadn’t received selection campaign contributions from a questionable local corporation during their bid in order to lead our ruling African National Congress (ANC).
It later emerged that was incorrect. Mr Ramphosa apologised, and said he’d been misinformed. But South Africa’s corruption watchdog has said Mr Ramaphosa deliberately misled parliament and should be investigated by prosecutors.
The explosive allegations against President Ramaphosa have emerged by many as an electric battle for control of the ANC and South Africa it self. Party factions have only become more entrenched since former President Jacob Zuma, 77, was forced to resign as president in February 2018 amid widespread allegations of corruption, which that he denies.
That he was replaced by his then-deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, who promised to tackle corruption in the country. Many South Africans believe that he means it. Mr Ramaphosa described Mr Zuma’s nine years in office as “wasted”.
Critics of Ms Mkhwebane accuse her of bias and say she’s become a participant in a fight-back by allies of former President Zuma, who’s now facing numerous allegations of corruption himself.
The battles are likely to play out in South Africa’s courts, which may have remained largely independent.
Mr Zuma is always to give further testimony to an ongoing corruption inquiry, withdrawing an earlier threat to grab. His lawyer, Muzi Sikhakhane, had said on Friday that Mr Zuma would “take no longer part” in the proceedings.
But the judge overseeing the inquiry later said Mr Zuma had agreed to provide it with written statements. The inquiry is investigating allegations that the ex-leader oversaw a web of corruption whilst in office..
The lawyer, Mr Sikhakhane, told the inquiry commission in Johannesburg: “Our client right from the start… has been treated as someone who was accused. ” He criticised the investigation led by Judge Raymond Zondo, alleging that it had been a “political process where in fact the left hand doesn’t know very well what the right hand is doing”. He also said Mr Zuma was subjected to “relentless cross-examination”.
Mr Zuma was due to provide a final day of testimony on Friday but the inquiry was adjourned. “I expected that he would co-operate, ” Judge Zondo said following Mr Zuma’s withdrawal. “The first purpose was to provide him a chance to tell his side of his story. ”
But shortly after, the judge said Mr Zuma had consented to provide written statements and return to the inquiry at a later time.
The allegations against Mr Zuma concentrate on his relationship with the controversial Gupta family, which includes been accused of influencing cabinet appointments and winning lucrative state tenders through corruption.
He’s also been accused of taking bribes from the logistics firm Bosasa, which is run by the Watson family. All the parties deny allegations of wrongdoing.
The scandal is widely referred to as “state capture” – shorthand for a form of corruption in which companies and politicians commandeer state assets to advance their particular interests.
On Monday, Mr Zuma gave a lengthy address in which that he claimed the corruption allegations were a “conspiracy” directed at removing him from the political scene. “I have already been vilified, purported to be the king of corrupt people, ” he said.
He implied that great britain and US had been – and still were – element of an elaborate plot to discredit him, even while he tried to bring about political and economic change in South Africa.
Mr Zuma also said other foreign agents had tried to poison him, without naming them or offering any proof. “I never did anything together unlawfully, ” he said of the Gupta family. “They just remained friends, as they were friends to everybody else. ”
He also objected to allegations he had allowed the state to be “captured” by your family. “Did I auction Dining table Mountain? Did I auction Johannesburg? ” he asked.
On Tuesday, the former president said he had received death threats following his testimony.
Many of the revelations from the inquiry concern the relationship between two families – the Zumas, centred on the former president, and the Guptas, three Indian-born brothers who moved to South Africa following the fall of apartheid.
The 2 families became so closely linked a joint term was coined for them – the “Zuptas”.
The Guptas owned a portfolio of businesses that enjoyed lucrative contracts with South African government departments and state-owned conglomerates. They also employed several Zuma family members – including the president’s son, Duduzane – in senior positions.
According to testimony heard at the inquiry, the Guptas went to great lengths to influence their most important client, the South African state. Public officials responsible for various state bodies say these were directly instructed by the Guptas to take decisions that would advance the brothers’ business interests.
It is so-called that compliance was rewarded with money and promotion, while disobedience was punished with dismissal.