Public Protector Thuli Madonsela on Thursday thanked the public for entrusting the Chapter 9 institution with investigating spending at President Jacob Zuma’s controversial Nkandla residence.
Addressing the media at her offices in Pretoria‚ Madonsela described the Constitutional Court ruling that reaffirmed the powers of her office as “ground breaking”‚ saying it would allow for reflections on the mistakes after a “rocky year” for constitutional democracy.
Trust in Chapter 9 institutions and the reaffirmation of the Constitution would “allow us to proceed to work together meaningfully for a partnership of good governance”‚ she said.
In a wide-ranging and unanimous judgment on Thursday‚ the Constitutional Court concluded that President Zuma failed to uphold‚ defend and protect the Constitution of South Africa by not considering as binding remedial action put forward in a 2014 report.
The court concluded that Zuma’s failure to implement the public protector’s remedial action contained in her Nkandla report in the absence of a legal challenge was “illegal”. The court levelled similar criticism at the National Assembly as a whole.
The 2014 Secure in Comfort report — in which Madonsela made damning findings about upgrades to Zuma’s private home and concluded that the president and his family had unduly benefited — has been the subject of protracted legal and political battles.
This included attacks against Madonsela herself‚ such as that she had links with foreign intelligence agencies.
Madonsela said on Thursday she had hoped the court would have clarified if she should be prosecuted for holding the views that recommendations were binding‚ currently being investigated by the Hawks.
During the hearings of the applications in February‚ Zuma’s lawyers conceded that he was bound by Madonsela’s recommendation that he pay back some of the R246 million spent on upgrades to his Nkandla home. Madonsela said she would thank the president for this‚ adding she believed that Parliament and the executive did respect the Constitution‚ and had complied with judicial orders in the past‚ even if this was “tardy”.
“I am certain that we all make mistakes‚ and that a mistake was made by the executive‚ by Parliament‚ and by those who diverted attention away from the question of whether the conduct was proper or improper‚” said Madonsela.
Thursday’s judgment was not an indictment on the longevity of SA’s democracy‚ she said. “When one part of the system fails you cannot say the whole system has failed. It was built in a way that compensates for failure‚” she said.
“I honestly believe that with the dust behind us‚ we will start acting reasonably‚” she said.
Madonsela said on Thursday she had not received any apologetic calls from those her had levelled criticism. The judgment would hopefully allow for reflection she said‚ including tolerance of those “who tell you what you don’t want to hear ... but what you need to hear‚” she said.
Asked whether the Public Protector would work with the Treasury to estimate the extent of non-security spending at Nkandla‚ Madonsela said the office would assist‚ but was probably not best placed for this.
“We do expect that Treasury may consult us‚ but we are not really expert in quantity surveying. Most of us here are lawyers‚” she said.
Madonsela thanks South Africans for their trust in her office
Addressing the media at her offices in Pretoria‚ Madonsela described the Constitutional Court ruling that reaffirmed the powers of her office as “ground breaking”‚ saying it would allow for reflections on the mistakes after a “rocky year” for constitutional democracy.
Trust in Chapter 9 institutions and the reaffirmation of the Constitution would “allow us to proceed to work together meaningfully for a partnership of good governance”‚ she said.
In a wide-ranging and unanimous judgment on Thursday‚ the Constitutional Court concluded that President Zuma failed to uphold‚ defend and protect the Constitution of South Africa by not considering as binding remedial action put forward in a 2014 report.
The court concluded that Zuma’s failure to implement the public protector’s remedial action contained in her Nkandla report in the absence of a legal challenge was “illegal”. The court levelled similar criticism at the National Assembly as a whole.
The 2014 Secure in Comfort report — in which Madonsela made damning findings about upgrades to Zuma’s private home and concluded that the president and his family had unduly benefited — has been the subject of protracted legal and political battles.
This included attacks against Madonsela herself‚ such as that she had links with foreign intelligence agencies.
Madonsela said on Thursday she had hoped the court would have clarified if she should be prosecuted for holding the views that recommendations were binding‚ currently being investigated by the Hawks.
During the hearings of the applications in February‚ Zuma’s lawyers conceded that he was bound by Madonsela’s recommendation that he pay back some of the R246 million spent on upgrades to his Nkandla home. Madonsela said she would thank the president for this‚ adding she believed that Parliament and the executive did respect the Constitution‚ and had complied with judicial orders in the past‚ even if this was “tardy”.
“I am certain that we all make mistakes‚ and that a mistake was made by the executive‚ by Parliament‚ and by those who diverted attention away from the question of whether the conduct was proper or improper‚” said Madonsela.
Thursday’s judgment was not an indictment on the longevity of SA’s democracy‚ she said. “When one part of the system fails you cannot say the whole system has failed. It was built in a way that compensates for failure‚” she said.
“I honestly believe that with the dust behind us‚ we will start acting reasonably‚” she said.
Madonsela said on Thursday she had not received any apologetic calls from those her had levelled criticism. The judgment would hopefully allow for reflection she said‚ including tolerance of those “who tell you what you don’t want to hear ... but what you need to hear‚” she said.
Asked whether the Public Protector would work with the Treasury to estimate the extent of non-security spending at Nkandla‚ Madonsela said the office would assist‚ but was probably not best placed for this.
“We do expect that Treasury may consult us‚ but we are not really expert in quantity surveying. Most of us here are lawyers‚” 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 Now
Latest Videos