JOHANNESBURG - Large parts of the Phala Phala report are based on hearsay.
Advocate Michael Osborne says the report's authors put heavy emphasis on the fact that they could not subpoena witnesses or consider testimony.
Osborne says the Section 89 process acts more as a filter than an investigation and other current investigations could come to different conclusions
"What the committee's report, the 80-page report, does is present quite a detailed summary of material that was placed before it. Only written material that was placed before it by the complainants which would be the EFF, the ATM, the UDM and then some responses from the president," he said.
"The panel made a point of noting that it had not heard anything from the South African Reserve Bank which apparently has conducted its own investigation, nor has it heard anything from the Hawks which also has been conducting its own investigation.
"So in its summary and its prima facie view of what was placed before it, the panel went out of its way to say that it had this limited prima facie passive role and that it had not had the benefit of input from other parties that were conducting investigations of their own and furthermore noted that a great deal of the material before it was hearsay," he said.
"Key players are relied upon. No affidavit or sworn testimony is to be had."