President Jacob Zuma may have been spooked by the public protector’s initial notice on her probe on state capture to him, in which she listed initial evidence against him indicating that he may have contravened the Executive Ethics Code and been in breach of the Constitution.
A section 7(9) notice in terms of the Public Protector Act provides that during the course of an investigation a person implicated in what may become an adverse finding should be afforded an opportunity to respond.
The Presidency has cried foul over the process, saying that the meeting of October 6 was intended to be a "briefing session" to a Section 7(9) notice.
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela was meant to release her report on state capture on Friday, a day before her seven-year term ended. She was prevented from doing so because Zuma — after initially agreeing to meet her — requested in a first meeting that she leave the probe to her successor to conclude, and then asked to interview her witnesses ahead of a scheduled second meeting.
He subsequently applied for a court interdict to block the release of the report.
In the notice sent to Zuma, the public protector details the complaints laid, her observations and the evidence against him.
In it she alleges that Zuma failed to act on allegations that members of the Gupta family and his son, Duduzane, offered Cabinet posts to Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas and former MP Vytjie Mentor, and that the president had sought to solicit assistance from an official of state to benefit members of the Gupta family — who he had acknowledged as his friends.
Zuma may have breached the Constitution again
President Jacob Zuma may have been spooked by the public protector’s initial notice on her probe on state capture to him, in which she listed initial evidence against him indicating that he may have contravened the Executive Ethics Code and been in breach of the Constitution.
A section 7(9) notice in terms of the Public Protector Act provides that during the course of an investigation a person implicated in what may become an adverse finding should be afforded an opportunity to respond.
The Presidency has cried foul over the process, saying that the meeting of October 6 was intended to be a "briefing session" to a Section 7(9) notice.
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela was meant to release her report on state capture on Friday, a day before her seven-year term ended. She was prevented from doing so because Zuma — after initially agreeing to meet her — requested in a first meeting that she leave the probe to her successor to conclude, and then asked to interview her witnesses ahead of a scheduled second meeting.
He subsequently applied for a court interdict to block the release of the report.
In the notice sent to Zuma, the public protector details the complaints laid, her observations and the evidence against him.
In it she alleges that Zuma failed to act on allegations that members of the Gupta family and his son, Duduzane, offered Cabinet posts to Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas and former MP Vytjie Mentor, and that the president had sought to solicit assistance from an official of state to benefit members of the Gupta family — who he had acknowledged as his friends.
Click here to more on BusinessLIVE
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