The Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) declined, during a parliamentary committee meeting, to confirm whether it received, analysed, or shared information linked to the Phala Phala matter, saying the Financial Intelligence Centre Act bars the Centre from discussing operational details involving specific cases, individuals, or entities in that forum.
During a meeting of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance on 2 June 2026, MK Party MP Des van Rooyen and EFF MP Omphile Maotwe pressed FIC executive manager for legal and policy Pieter Smit on whether the Centre had done any analysis of the alleged foreign-currency buffalo transaction at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm. Both MPs said the information could be relevant to the impeachment process and asked whether the FIC has produced any findings or report on the matter.
Smit told the committee that the FIC does not itself carry out criminal investigations. Its role is to receive reports and other information, analyse financial intelligence, identify possible proceeds of unlawful activity or money-laundering risks, and share relevant intelligence with authorities that have a mandate to investigate. He added that only a portion of the FIC’s work involves forensic accounting that may later be used as evidence in criminal investigations.
He said the FIC was not at liberty to discuss whether it had handled a particular matter, or whether it had received information on a specific person or entity, because FICA restricts the disclosure of such operational information. Smit said the concern was not simply confidentiality in the abstract, but the possibility that disclosure could affect future steps that might still be taken by bodies outside the FIC.
Van Rooyen said the issue was important because of the impeachment process and because the alleged transaction involved foreign currency. He asked whether any analysis had been done on the Phala Phala matter and whether the issue had been referred to the FIC, either from within South Africa or by a foreign jurisdiction. He later narrowed his request, saying he was not asking for operational detail but only for confirmation on whether the matter had reached the FIC.
Maotwe also asked for a direct answer on whether the FIC had investigated the matter and, if so, what its findings were. She said Parliament should be able to access that information, particularly because the impeachment committee might otherwise have to begin its work without knowing whether the issue had already been considered within the financial-intelligence system. She also referred to statements by the South African Revenue Service and the South African Reserve Bank that they had no declaration on record and asked where the FIC stood on the matter.
In response, Smit repeated that the FIC could not answer those questions in that committee setting. He said that when the Centre identifies information worthy of investigation, it passes that intelligence to agencies with the legal power to investigate, including the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, SARS, and the SARB’s Financial Surveillance Division.
He said the FIC may then receive follow-up requests and conduct further analysis in support of those investigations, but it does not itself investigate criminal activity.
Smit also drew a distinction between pending matters and cases already before the courts. He said the FIC can discuss case studies when matters are in court and under prosecution and the information is already in the public domain, but not while issues are still pending and disclosure could have consequences for other processes.
Van Rooyen said Smit appeared to be circling around the question and indicated that he would pursue the issue through questions to the Minister of Finance. Maotwe said she did not accept Smit’s response and argued that it was unacceptable for an official appearing before Parliament to decline to answer such a direct question.
Smit said there have been similar instances before in which the committee had to consider how it might subpoena the FIC for protected information. He maintained that the Centre was not seeking to obstruct Parliament but was bound by law to operate within those limits.
Committee chairperson Joseph Maswanganyi (ANC) said members were entitled to ask the questions they had raised, but he suggested that the matter would have to be dealt with through the proper procedure. He said those serving on the impeachment committee would be able to summon the FIC through the appropriate channel.
Phala phala is an accountable institution in terms FICA, it’s under item 20 (High-value good dealers). When the transaction took place, phala-phala was not yet an accountable institution as it was declared as such only from 2022, so phala-phala bore no reporting obligations to the FIC, there is no way the the Fic will have a record of the transaction as it had occurred before phala phala was declared a High-value goods dealer, Let alone that the Fic is protecting confidential information