Berning Ntlemeza's overzealousness is remarkable.
The Hawks boss insists that Pravin Gordhan must answer the questions, within a deadline and without debate.
President Jacob Zuma's conduct in the saga is also remarkable: he has undertaken to follow the "prescripts of the law" in dealing with the Hawks vs Gordhan saga.
Zuma's undertaking not to "interfere" with the investigation conducted by the Hawks on the so-called rogue unit within the SA Revenue Service is refreshing.
Don't we all wish following the "prescripts of the law", starting with the oath of office, was at least one thing our president was good at? Following the "prescripts" would surely take him out of the basket of Africa's looters.
Ironically, this follower of "prescripts of the law" is yet to answer some questions from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela on Nkandla, three years since they were put to him.
Ntlemeza's struggles in relation to Gordhan and Madonsela's frustration in relation to Zuma makes for an interesting comparison. Ntlemeza gave Gordhan a list of 27 questions. Madonsela gave Zuma a list of 29 questions.
Madonsela's attempt to get answers from Zuma proved to be more than a tall order that eventually yielded little.
Madonsela's agony started on January 29 2013 when she asked Zuma to provide a copy of a registered bond to corroborate his statement made in parliament that his family financed the construction of the Nkandla homestead with a bond.
She received no response.
In 2013, she approached the Presidency three times - on April 11, June 21, and August 19 - to no avail. On July 29, she wrote to Zuma and, again, got no response.
On August 11 2013, Madonsela met with Zuma, shortly before she went to Nkandla to investigate.
In that meeting, she handed him the list of questions.
Zuma agreed to provide a written response. On August 26 2013 a desperate Madonsela approached the Presidency's director-general Dr Cassius Lubisi for assistance.
Although Zuma had already been given the list of questions, the Presidency requested a copy.
Madonsela obliged and gave the Presidency the list on August 27. But still no answer was forthcoming.
On September 16, Madonsela wrote directly to Zuma requesting a response.
Finally on October 1, Zuma submitted a statement to Madonsela explaining the importance of him being safe and secured in Nkandla. No copy of a registered bond was presented to Madonsela and Zuma ducked a number of questions, including whether he knew about the costs.
On October 8 Madonsela wrote to Zuma providing a list of questions he didn't answer and further asking for evidence of the statement he made in parliament that he was servicing a home loan.
On October 24, Zuma told Madonsela the bond disclosure she needed was "unnecessary".
He further demanded "evidence" that informed her line of questioning.
He also stated that the contractors in Nkandla were hired by him and his family.
Government officials who were assigned to install security upgrades found them on site.
In her report Madonsela concluded thus on this issue of the list of questions: "I never received a further response from the president to the questions posed to him."
Back to Ntlemeza. He made one follow-up and he immediately showed signs of exasperation.
But Ntlemeza should be grateful that, unlike Madonsela, he is getting reasons from Gordhan on the delay in providing answers.
Gordhan had been preparing a budget and he is now trying to charm sceptical rating agencies to make sure that South Africa is not downgraded to junk status.
For her part, poor Madonsela was left to figure out on her own why Zuma was not answering the questions. She had no option but to send countless reminders to Zuma's office. Zuma's assistants and high-ranking officials knew that their boss was playing elusive with the public protector.
This is the boss who in terms of Section 181 of the constitution is obliged to lead the executive to "assist" and "protect" the public protector and to "ensure the dignity" and "effectiveness" of her office.
In fact, Madonsela suffered the indignity of being harassed by presidential sycophants after Zuma opened the floodgates for such unlawful conduct.
Unlike the lucky fish Ntlemeza, Madonsela was even investigated for allegedly spying for the US.
With this on the minds of the Constitutional Court judges, Zuma will be extremely lucky to escape a ruling tailor-made for impeachment proceedings in parliament.
But I digress.
In Gordhan's case, Ntlemeza has a lot going well for him. He has the backing of a president and his cluster of security ministers.
With the political support he has, Ntlemeza must just relax - and be strong. If his lucky stars multiply he will get a response from Gordhan before rating agencies decide on whether we get junk status.
Otherwise, Gordhan is too busy trying to sell a good story about SA, which excludes Ntlemeza's conduct and probably Zuma's.
One hopes Gordhan will beat the Zuma's tardy record and respond to the Hawks by submitting all answers.
Gordhan can beat Zuma's tardy record of non-response
Berning Ntlemeza's overzealousness is remarkable.
The Hawks boss insists that Pravin Gordhan must answer the questions, within a deadline and without debate.
President Jacob Zuma's conduct in the saga is also remarkable: he has undertaken to follow the "prescripts of the law" in dealing with the Hawks vs Gordhan saga.
Zuma's undertaking not to "interfere" with the investigation conducted by the Hawks on the so-called rogue unit within the SA Revenue Service is refreshing.
Don't we all wish following the "prescripts of the law", starting with the oath of office, was at least one thing our president was good at? Following the "prescripts" would surely take him out of the basket of Africa's looters.
Ironically, this follower of "prescripts of the law" is yet to answer some questions from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela on Nkandla, three years since they were put to him.
Ntlemeza's struggles in relation to Gordhan and Madonsela's frustration in relation to Zuma makes for an interesting comparison. Ntlemeza gave Gordhan a list of 27 questions. Madonsela gave Zuma a list of 29 questions.
Madonsela's attempt to get answers from Zuma proved to be more than a tall order that eventually yielded little.
Madonsela's agony started on January 29 2013 when she asked Zuma to provide a copy of a registered bond to corroborate his statement made in parliament that his family financed the construction of the Nkandla homestead with a bond.
She received no response.
In 2013, she approached the Presidency three times - on April 11, June 21, and August 19 - to no avail. On July 29, she wrote to Zuma and, again, got no response.
On August 11 2013, Madonsela met with Zuma, shortly before she went to Nkandla to investigate.
In that meeting, she handed him the list of questions.
Zuma agreed to provide a written response. On August 26 2013 a desperate Madonsela approached the Presidency's director-general Dr Cassius Lubisi for assistance.
Although Zuma had already been given the list of questions, the Presidency requested a copy.
Madonsela obliged and gave the Presidency the list on August 27. But still no answer was forthcoming.
On September 16, Madonsela wrote directly to Zuma requesting a response.
Finally on October 1, Zuma submitted a statement to Madonsela explaining the importance of him being safe and secured in Nkandla. No copy of a registered bond was presented to Madonsela and Zuma ducked a number of questions, including whether he knew about the costs.
On October 8 Madonsela wrote to Zuma providing a list of questions he didn't answer and further asking for evidence of the statement he made in parliament that he was servicing a home loan.
On October 24, Zuma told Madonsela the bond disclosure she needed was "unnecessary".
He further demanded "evidence" that informed her line of questioning.
He also stated that the contractors in Nkandla were hired by him and his family.
Government officials who were assigned to install security upgrades found them on site.
In her report Madonsela concluded thus on this issue of the list of questions: "I never received a further response from the president to the questions posed to him."
Back to Ntlemeza. He made one follow-up and he immediately showed signs of exasperation.
But Ntlemeza should be grateful that, unlike Madonsela, he is getting reasons from Gordhan on the delay in providing answers.
Gordhan had been preparing a budget and he is now trying to charm sceptical rating agencies to make sure that South Africa is not downgraded to junk status.
For her part, poor Madonsela was left to figure out on her own why Zuma was not answering the questions. She had no option but to send countless reminders to Zuma's office. Zuma's assistants and high-ranking officials knew that their boss was playing elusive with the public protector.
This is the boss who in terms of Section 181 of the constitution is obliged to lead the executive to "assist" and "protect" the public protector and to "ensure the dignity" and "effectiveness" of her office.
In fact, Madonsela suffered the indignity of being harassed by presidential sycophants after Zuma opened the floodgates for such unlawful conduct.
Unlike the lucky fish Ntlemeza, Madonsela was even investigated for allegedly spying for the US.
With this on the minds of the Constitutional Court judges, Zuma will be extremely lucky to escape a ruling tailor-made for impeachment proceedings in parliament.
But I digress.
In Gordhan's case, Ntlemeza has a lot going well for him. He has the backing of a president and his cluster of security ministers.
With the political support he has, Ntlemeza must just relax - and be strong. If his lucky stars multiply he will get a response from Gordhan before rating agencies decide on whether we get junk status.
Otherwise, Gordhan is too busy trying to sell a good story about SA, which excludes Ntlemeza's conduct and probably Zuma's.
One hopes Gordhan will beat the Zuma's tardy record and respond to the Hawks by submitting all answers.
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