Hailing a judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ordering the suspension of SABC boss Hlaudi Motsoeneng as a victory for the party‚ the Democratic Alliance said on Thursday the ruling had serious ramifications for President Jacob Zuma.
The SCA ruled on Thursday that Motsoeneng should be suspended for 60 days while a disciplinary hearing into his breaches is conducted.
Motsoeneng‚ the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and the Communications Minister were challenging an earlier high court order that upheld Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s finding that action be taken against him for receiving exorbitant salary increases and forging his matric qualification.
Motsoeneng has since been awarded a further R1m salary increase by the SABC board and has remained at work free from any disciplinary action.
The SABC will now have to investigate him and bring a disciplinary case against him or face being in contempt of court.
The SCA in the summary of its judgement said that “remedial action by Public Protector…legal effect…and cannot be ignored by state and public institutions”.
Commenting on Thursday SCA judgment‚ James Selfe‚ chairperson of the DA’s federal executive‚ said: “This judgment has serious ramifications for President Jacob Zuma and his liability for the R246m Nkandlagate scandal into which taxpayer rands were plunged.
“The President effectively acted in direct contravention of established legal precedent when he appointed the Police Minister to make a determination of how much he was liable for the non-security upgrades at Nkandla. This clearly constituted a ‘parallel process’ which is clearly not in line with due process.”
President Zuma must face the music and simply pay back the money‚ he added.
“One thing is clear: there is an obligation on Hlaudi‚ Minister of Communications‚ Faith Muthambi‚ the SABC and President Jacob Zuma — on the Nkandlagate scandal — to uphold and give effect to the findings of the Public Protector‚” Selfe asserted.
He said the SCA judgment with regards to Motsoeneng was consistent with the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector.
“The SABC is now compelled by the Court to institute the disciplinary proceedings as is ordered by the Public Protector. The disciplinary proceedings must begin in the next fourteen days and be completed within a 60-day period. Mr Motsoeneng‚ however‚ must now be suspended with immediate effect.”
Selfe said the SCA had vindicated the DA’s position by determining that “the office of the Public Protector‚ like all Chapter Nine institutions‚ is a venerable one. Our constitutional compact demands that the remedial action taken by the Public Protector should not be ignored…any affected person or institution aggrieved by a finding‚ decision or action taken by the Public Protector might…challenge that by way of a review application.”
Further to this‚ the SCA had determined that “an individual or body affected by any finding‚ decision or remedial action taken by the Public Protector is not entitled to embark on a parallel investigation process to that of the Public Protector‚ and adopt the position that the outcome of that parallel process trumps the findings taken by the Public Protector”.
Motsoeneng judgment has serious ramifications for Zuma‚ says DA
The SCA ruled on Thursday that Motsoeneng should be suspended for 60 days while a disciplinary hearing into his breaches is conducted.
Motsoeneng‚ the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and the Communications Minister were challenging an earlier high court order that upheld Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s finding that action be taken against him for receiving exorbitant salary increases and forging his matric qualification.
Motsoeneng has since been awarded a further R1m salary increase by the SABC board and has remained at work free from any disciplinary action.
The SABC will now have to investigate him and bring a disciplinary case against him or face being in contempt of court.
The SCA in the summary of its judgement said that “remedial action by Public Protector…legal effect…and cannot be ignored by state and public institutions”.
Commenting on Thursday SCA judgment‚ James Selfe‚ chairperson of the DA’s federal executive‚ said: “This judgment has serious ramifications for President Jacob Zuma and his liability for the R246m Nkandlagate scandal into which taxpayer rands were plunged.
“The President effectively acted in direct contravention of established legal precedent when he appointed the Police Minister to make a determination of how much he was liable for the non-security upgrades at Nkandla. This clearly constituted a ‘parallel process’ which is clearly not in line with due process.”
President Zuma must face the music and simply pay back the money‚ he added.
“One thing is clear: there is an obligation on Hlaudi‚ Minister of Communications‚ Faith Muthambi‚ the SABC and President Jacob Zuma — on the Nkandlagate scandal — to uphold and give effect to the findings of the Public Protector‚” Selfe asserted.
He said the SCA judgment with regards to Motsoeneng was consistent with the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector.
“The SABC is now compelled by the Court to institute the disciplinary proceedings as is ordered by the Public Protector. The disciplinary proceedings must begin in the next fourteen days and be completed within a 60-day period. Mr Motsoeneng‚ however‚ must now be suspended with immediate effect.”
Selfe said the SCA had vindicated the DA’s position by determining that “the office of the Public Protector‚ like all Chapter Nine institutions‚ is a venerable one. Our constitutional compact demands that the remedial action taken by the Public Protector should not be ignored…any affected person or institution aggrieved by a finding‚ decision or action taken by the Public Protector might…challenge that by way of a review application.”
Further to this‚ the SCA had determined that “an individual or body affected by any finding‚ decision or remedial action taken by the Public Protector is not entitled to embark on a parallel investigation process to that of the Public Protector‚ and adopt the position that the outcome of that parallel process trumps the findings taken by the Public Protector”.
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 Now
Latest Videos