Public Protector Thuli Madonsela has come out fighting after strong criticism by parliament and President Jacob Zuma.
Madonsela told a media briefing that she stood by her conclusion that Zuma should pay back some of the money spent on upgrading his Nkandla residence. She read a statement she would have presented to the parliamentary committee on the Nkandla scandal. The committee decided not to invite her to address it.
“I expected Parliament to allow me to be interviewed because that is what I believe is the expectation from the Constitution when public functionaries are involved in decision-making‚” she said. “They should ensure that they exhaust all sources of information that may shed light on the issue they want to decide on. I have information on the issue they are deliberating on and I would like to share that information.”
She said that police minister Nathi Nhleko should have reported to Zuma‚ not to parliament.
“We are witnessing worrying defiant trends‚” she said referring to the failure of some state institutions to implement recommendations by independent institutions.
She said she was concerned that the “safety valve that an office such as ours is meant to provide” was “being eroded“.
“I appeal that we stop personalising matters‚” she said.
Zuma had been alerted as early as November 2009 to possible over-spending. “Yes‚ the president should have done something. At the time the cost estimate was R65-million‚” she said.
She said that “the president was‚ by his own admission‚ interacting with officials“.
“The finding was that the president and his family had unduly benefited. It is in line was the form of improper conduct” referred to in Public Protector act.
Referring to the claim that the Nkandla swimming pool was a fire pool‚ she said: “It is clearly a swimming pool with fire-fighting functionalities“.
The visitors centre “not listed by the authorised security experts” who prepared a document on Nkandla. “There was an unused building that could have done the same job.”
Madonsela outlined the process she had followed after the Nkandla investigation “was duly requested by a member of Parliament“.
She said Zuma had been given 14 days to respond in terms of legislation. He had done so in a report submitted by his lawyers and the report had been issued to the public in March 2014.
She dismissed criticism that she had released the report to the public instead of to parliament. “The practice of releasing reports to the media predates the current public protector.”
It was “patently unfair and untrue” that she had failed to furnish parliament with reports. “This office has never failed to present a requested report.” This was despite the fact that there was “no obligation to submit any report to parliament“.
“Parliament’s role is that of oversight and not that of the executive‚” she said.
Public protector adamant Zuma must pay back some of money
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela has come out fighting after strong criticism by parliament and President Jacob Zuma.
Madonsela told a media briefing that she stood by her conclusion that Zuma should pay back some of the money spent on upgrading his Nkandla residence. She read a statement she would have presented to the parliamentary committee on the Nkandla scandal. The committee decided not to invite her to address it.
“I expected Parliament to allow me to be interviewed because that is what I believe is the expectation from the Constitution when public functionaries are involved in decision-making‚” she said. “They should ensure that they exhaust all sources of information that may shed light on the issue they want to decide on. I have information on the issue they are deliberating on and I would like to share that information.”
She said that police minister Nathi Nhleko should have reported to Zuma‚ not to parliament.
“We are witnessing worrying defiant trends‚” she said referring to the failure of some state institutions to implement recommendations by independent institutions.
She said she was concerned that the “safety valve that an office such as ours is meant to provide” was “being eroded“.
“I appeal that we stop personalising matters‚” she said.
Zuma had been alerted as early as November 2009 to possible over-spending. “Yes‚ the president should have done something. At the time the cost estimate was R65-million‚” she said.
She said that “the president was‚ by his own admission‚ interacting with officials“.
“The finding was that the president and his family had unduly benefited. It is in line was the form of improper conduct” referred to in Public Protector act.
Referring to the claim that the Nkandla swimming pool was a fire pool‚ she said: “It is clearly a swimming pool with fire-fighting functionalities“.
The visitors centre “not listed by the authorised security experts” who prepared a document on Nkandla. “There was an unused building that could have done the same job.”
Madonsela outlined the process she had followed after the Nkandla investigation “was duly requested by a member of Parliament“.
She said Zuma had been given 14 days to respond in terms of legislation. He had done so in a report submitted by his lawyers and the report had been issued to the public in March 2014.
She dismissed criticism that she had released the report to the public instead of to parliament. “The practice of releasing reports to the media predates the current public protector.”
It was “patently unfair and untrue” that she had failed to furnish parliament with reports. “This office has never failed to present a requested report.” This was despite the fact that there was “no obligation to submit any report to parliament“.
“Parliament’s role is that of oversight and not that of the executive‚” she said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos