The Constitutional Court is expected on Thursday morning to condone or condemn President Jacob Zuma’s conduct in the Nkandla matter.
This follows years of intense politicking since the public protector found that Zuma had “unduly benefited” from the construction at Nkandla and should pay back a portion of the money.
In her report in 2014‚ titled “Secure in Comfort“‚ Thuli Madonsela said some features included in the R246-million security upgrades to Zuma’s Nkandla residence in KwaZulu-Natal were not security features. These included a cattle kraal‚ chicken run‚ visitors’ centre and pool.
But Zuma did not “pay back the money“‚ instead he prevaricated and eventually referred the matter to his police minister‚ Nathi Nhleko‚ who conducted his own inquiry to establish whether Zuma owed anything.
Nhleko produced a report which found that Zuma did not owe a cent‚ which was adopted by parliament after a fractious debate.
By then parliament had been brought to a standstill on several occasions by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)‚ insisting that Zuma makes a commitment to repaying the money.
The EFF and the Democratic Alliance took the matter to the Constitutional Court.
In February the justices of the court heard argument in the matter. Zuma’s counsel‚ Jeremy Gauntlett SC‚ surprised all when he abandoned Zuma’s dogged defiance and said the president wanted to bring the matter to a close.
He said Zuma would pay back a portion of the Nkandla expenses that were found to be unrelated to security.
Gauntlett referred to the finding by the Supreme Court of Appeal that remedial action prescribed by the public protector was binding.
“It is not necessary for this court to re-plough the furrow‚” he said.
Parliament was shown up during the hearing for its finding that Zuma did not owe money.
Advocate Lindi Nkosi-Thomas‚ appearing for the Speaker of the National Assembly‚ argued: “The public protector cannot dictate to parliament what to do.”
But when chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng asked: “So it was open to Parliament to effectively render the remedial actions of the public protector void?” she conceded: “Parliament took a wrong position.”
Counsel for the EFF‚ Wim Trengove SC‚ asked the court to go ahead and make a finding on the matter despite Gauntlett’s concession that Zuma had to pay back the money.
“As far as the president is concerned‚ he has violated his duty to assist the public protector. This means the president has violated his duty to uphold his office. He has‚ for nearly two years‚ defied the public protector‚” Trengove said.
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos said of Gauntlett’s concession: “The president obviously threw parliament under the bus ... it was impossible‚ after the president conceded‚ for the representative of parliament to come with a sound argument.”
“The question that it raises is whether parliament has ever understood its proper role in our system of separation of powers‚ which is to hold the executive accountable. Why is it that they acted in a way they did‚ which seemed‚ to informed legal minds‚ not wise?“
De Vos said: “Parliament‚ in terms of the constitution‚ has the discretion to impeach the president if he is in breach of the constitution.”
– TMG Digital
An end to Nkandla politicking expected
The Constitutional Court is expected on Thursday morning to condone or condemn President Jacob Zuma’s conduct in the Nkandla matter.
This follows years of intense politicking since the public protector found that Zuma had “unduly benefited” from the construction at Nkandla and should pay back a portion of the money.
In her report in 2014‚ titled “Secure in Comfort“‚ Thuli Madonsela said some features included in the R246-million security upgrades to Zuma’s Nkandla residence in KwaZulu-Natal were not security features. These included a cattle kraal‚ chicken run‚ visitors’ centre and pool.
But Zuma did not “pay back the money“‚ instead he prevaricated and eventually referred the matter to his police minister‚ Nathi Nhleko‚ who conducted his own inquiry to establish whether Zuma owed anything.
Nhleko produced a report which found that Zuma did not owe a cent‚ which was adopted by parliament after a fractious debate.
By then parliament had been brought to a standstill on several occasions by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)‚ insisting that Zuma makes a commitment to repaying the money.
The EFF and the Democratic Alliance took the matter to the Constitutional Court.
In February the justices of the court heard argument in the matter. Zuma’s counsel‚ Jeremy Gauntlett SC‚ surprised all when he abandoned Zuma’s dogged defiance and said the president wanted to bring the matter to a close.
He said Zuma would pay back a portion of the Nkandla expenses that were found to be unrelated to security.
Gauntlett referred to the finding by the Supreme Court of Appeal that remedial action prescribed by the public protector was binding.
“It is not necessary for this court to re-plough the furrow‚” he said.
Parliament was shown up during the hearing for its finding that Zuma did not owe money.
Advocate Lindi Nkosi-Thomas‚ appearing for the Speaker of the National Assembly‚ argued: “The public protector cannot dictate to parliament what to do.”
But when chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng asked: “So it was open to Parliament to effectively render the remedial actions of the public protector void?” she conceded: “Parliament took a wrong position.”
Counsel for the EFF‚ Wim Trengove SC‚ asked the court to go ahead and make a finding on the matter despite Gauntlett’s concession that Zuma had to pay back the money.
“As far as the president is concerned‚ he has violated his duty to assist the public protector. This means the president has violated his duty to uphold his office. He has‚ for nearly two years‚ defied the public protector‚” Trengove said.
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos said of Gauntlett’s concession: “The president obviously threw parliament under the bus ... it was impossible‚ after the president conceded‚ for the representative of parliament to come with a sound argument.”
“The question that it raises is whether parliament has ever understood its proper role in our system of separation of powers‚ which is to hold the executive accountable. Why is it that they acted in a way they did‚ which seemed‚ to informed legal minds‚ not wise?“
De Vos said: “Parliament‚ in terms of the constitution‚ has the discretion to impeach the president if he is in breach of the constitution.”
– TMG Digital
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