The Scandal That Shook South Africa: Fiko Mabula’s Allegations Against President Ramaphosa
In an unprecedented political shock, South Africa’s National Assembly was plunged into a state of stunned silence following a stunning revelation by ANC Secretary-General Fiko Mabula.

His explosive allegations against President Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing him of running covert government operations funded by taxpayer money, have shaken the very foundations of the ANC and raised serious questions about the future of the presidency.

This shocking disclosure has ignited a political firestorm that has left many questioning the legitimacy of Ramaphosa’s leadership and the future of the ruling party.

Fiko Mabula, known for his blunt delivery and sharp intellect, approached the podium with a sense of urgency and determination, laying bare a web of corruption, financial manipulation, and government malfeasance that he claims stretches directly to the president.

Mabula’s accusations were not based on hearsay or speculation but on what he described as concrete evidence—contracts, financial records, internal communications, and private correspondence that directly implicate the highest echelons of the ANC leadership.

Among the most alarming revelations Mabula uncovered was a secret energy program, valued at 3.1 billion rand, which was allegedly executed under the guise of strategic resource cooperation with a foreign country.

However, Mabula claims that this program produced no tangible returns and may have been a financial black hole designed to funnel public money elsewhere.

Perhaps even more disturbing was his claim about an illicit digital surveillance operation contracted to international intelligence firms.

He argued that this operation was not aimed at national security but at silencing political opponents both inside and outside the ANC, with taxpayer money used to fund the operation.

Mabula further revealed what he referred to as a network of “ghost tenders” awarded to Shell companies, which he claims were linked to influential figures connected to Ramaphosa’s former business interests.

These tenders were ostensibly for infrastructure projects in rural provinces, yet there were no visible improvements or projects to show for them.

Investigators reportedly traced these tenders through financial records and bank transactions, revealing offshore transfers and signed authorizations allegedly bearing the president’s name between 2019 and 2023.

Mabula described this as a “shadow government,” operating in parallel to state institutions, hidden from public scrutiny and insulated from accountability.

Mabula’s decision to go public with this information came after repeated attempts to address his concerns through internal ANC channels were met with obstruction, intimidation, and threats.

He framed his actions not as personal ambition or revenge but as a moral obligation, stating that the ANC, once championed by figures like Oliver Tambo, had strayed far from its roots and now resembled a criminal syndicate.

His revelations sent shockwaves through the political establishment.

The fallout from Mabula’s statement was immediate.

Emergency meetings were convened at both Latuli House (the ANC’s headquarters) and the Union Buildings, as senior ANC members scrambled to assess the damage.

President Ramaphosa, reportedly caught off guard, appeared visibly shaken by the public betrayal from one of his own.

Sources close to the president described the moment as a “political assassination.

” While some party insiders condemned Mabula’s actions as an overstep, others praised his courage for exposing the alleged rot within the party.

As the news spread, social media erupted with hashtags such as #RamaphosaMustGo and #ExposeTheTruth, with many South Africans expressing relief that the truth was finally coming to light.

The media frenzy surrounding the scandal escalated quickly, with both opposition parties and civil society organizations calling for a full investigation.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) wasted no time in calling for Ramaphosa to step aside, while the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) condemned the president’s actions and called for an immediate parliamentary inquiry.

The ANC’s response was mixed.

Some members, particularly those from Ramaphosa’s inner circle, defended the president, calling the allegations baseless.

However, even within the ANC, cracks began to appear, with some members privately acknowledging that if even a fraction of Mabula’s claims were true, it could spell the end of Ramaphosa’s presidency.

For Ramaphosa, this crisis represents the most significant challenge of his leadership.

Once positioned as the reformer who would restore integrity to South African governance, he now faces the possibility of his presidency unraveling due to widespread allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

The timing of these revelations couldn’t be worse.

With elections looming, Ramaphosa is now forced to defend his record in the face of growing public dissatisfaction, a weakened ANC, and mounting pressure from opposition forces.

The public’s response has been intense.

Many South Africans, frustrated by years of corruption scandals and unfulfilled promises, rallied behind Mabula, hailing him as a rare figure willing to take on the system.

At the same time, the EFF and other opposition parties have seized the moment to paint Ramaphosa as part of the same corrupt establishment that dominated the country for decades.

As the investigation continues, the legal implications for Ramaphosa could be profound.

Constitutional experts suggest that if the evidence Mabula has presented is substantiated, it could lead to impeachment proceedings under Section 89 of South Africa’s Constitution, which allows Parliament to remove a president for serious misconduct.

This would require a two-thirds majority vote in the National Assembly, which would likely require support from opposition parties, as well as ANC members disillusioned with Ramaphosa’s leadership.

Simultaneously, the investigation into the Farah Farfall scandal, another key element of O’Sullivan’s accusations, could further fuel the political crisis.

Ramaphosa’s explanation of the missing funds has been widely questioned, with critics accusing him of failing to properly account for the origin of the money and the manner in which it was recovered.

These revelations have not only damaged Ramaphosa’s reputation but have also raised significant concerns about the transparency of his financial dealings and the possibility of campaign finance irregularities.

At the heart of this crisis is the complex web of financial transactions, political connections, and the question of whether Ramaphosa’s actions have violated South Africa’s legal and ethical standards.

His leadership style, which has often been characterized by pragmatism and cautious negotiation, is now being questioned by many who see his failure to address corruption head-on as a sign of weakness.

The pressure on Ramaphosa is mounting from all sides.

The ANC’s internal divisions, compounded by opposition parties demanding accountability, create a tense atmosphere where every decision is scrutinized, and every action is seen through a political lens.

For the ANC, the stakes are high.

How they respond to the crisis could determine the future of the party and its standing within South Africa’s political landscape.

As this story unfolds, it is clear that the implications will go far beyond Ramaphosa’s presidency.

The scandal has already sparked conversations about the integrity of the ANC, the future of South African governance, and the effectiveness of political accountability mechanisms in a country still grappling with the legacies of state capture and corruption.