Connect with us


Who is Hazim Mustafa? The now infamous prepayer of $580k in relation to the Phala Phala affair

Caroline Du Plessis



The scene of the exchange of $ is South Africa.

South Africa is a unitary and sovereign nation-state and its lawful currency is the rand.

Hazim’s version is that he brought through OR Tambo, physical cash in US dollars and cleared the cash.

Clearly from his narrative, his state of mind when he arrived at OR Tambo was devoid of the purchase of animals from Phala Phala.

His wife is South African and he went after clearing the cash to Polokwane and a broker introduced him to the opportunity to convert the imported cash into animals.

He gave up the foreign currency in exchange for 20 beasts against a promise to deliver the animals to his order outside the country.

In terms of s2 of the Constitution, the supreme law of South Africa is the constitution and any law or conduct that is inconsistent with this constitution is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency.

The constitution is founded on the doctrines of equality and separation of powers.

With respect to equality, Hazim would have known that there existed no authority in law and fact that would permit him to use $ as legal tender in respect of the purchase of South African goods.

Notwithstanding this limitation, it is his version that he transported the cash to Polokwane and concluded a transaction in $ and he exchanged the cash with the Manager of the farm, Mr Slyvester Ndlovu, who accepted the foreign cash as payment.

Hazim maintains that his conduct was consistent with the prescriptions inherent in SA laws and as such he has no case to answer in relation to the facts and circumstances that would allow him to cross the border entry point with cash and proceed to hold the cash in transit to Limpopo and in turn tender the cash in exchange for the foreign denominated cash.

The fact that there was an offer of $ for the live beasts of value that was accepted and an exchange took place in the jurisdiction of SA using this incompetent and unlawful medium of exchange raises serious legal and constitutional questions regarding the promise of the equality doctrine.

It is not clear from Hazim’s version on when and how he first got to know of the relationship between the first citizen of SA and the transaction.

Mr. Ndlovu would have known that he lacked jurisdiction to accept payment from a non-VAT registered close corporation in a currency that fell outside the SA law in relation to trading and more importantly, the seller was required by law to collect VAT on behalf of the SARS.

The compliance obligation that is binding on all persons was exempted in order to make the deal happen.

This video will expose and provoke troubling questions for Hazim whose answers have a direct and material bearing on the dispute regarding the validity and legality of the sale and purchase of the animals.

The veracity of Hazim’s version when juxtaposed with the versions already in the public domain will need to be tested with the version of all the persons who were involved and implicated in the chain including Hazim testifying under oath as to what happened and who cleared the cash at the airport.

More on Phala 2

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Warning: Undefined variable $user_ID in /home/iniafrica/public_html/wp-content/themes/zox-news/comments.php on line 49

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply