Public Protector clears Ramaphosa over Steenhuisen’s Oval Office remarks
· Citizen
The Public Protector (PP) has cleared the president of breaching the executive ethics code after a complaint over his silence during Minister John Steenhuisen’s Oval Office remarks about the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and the EFF.
The PP found that President Cyril Ramaphosa did not violate section 2 of parliament’s code of ethical conduct. This related to his visit to the White House with US President Donald Trump on 21 May 2025.
Visit extonnews.click for more information.
Public Protector says Ramaphosa had no duty to rebut Steenhuisen’s comments
During the meeting, Steenhuisen said to Trump that the DA joined the government of national unity (GNU) to prevent the EFF and the MK party from entering government.
In the complaint, MK party MP Mzwanele Manyi alleged that Ramaphosa violated the code. He claimed Ramaphosa did so because he failed to correct or disassociate himself from Steenhuisen’s remarks.
“After a thorough investigation – which included analysis of video recordings, correspondence, constitutional provisions, and the executive ethics code – the Public Protector found no evidence that the president had breached the code,” the PP said in a statement on Monday evening.
The Public Protector found that the minister of agriculture made the comments on the MK party and EFF as a DA leader, not as government policy.
“The president had no legal duty to rebut political statements made by a coalition partner in a diplomatic setting,” the PP said.
‘Matter formally closed’
Furthermore, the Public Protector said there was no indication of a conflict in Ramaphosa’s conduct. The PP found no conflict between his official responsibilities and any private interest.
“The allegations in terms of clauses 2.3(c) and 2.3(f) were found to be unsubstantiated, and the matter has been formally closed.”
The PP reiterated that political parties have the constitutional right to express their opinions, even within coalition governments. Such political speech does not automatically mean executive misconduct.