Former Public Protector Advocate Thuli Madonsela’s “State of Capture” report paints a picture of a conflicted president who appears to have violated the Executive Ethics Code and who did everything he could to avoid having to explain his actions to her office.
In the report‚ released late Wednesday afternoon‚ Madonsela wrote of her “observations” of concern.
She said it was “worrying that the Gupta family was aware or may have been aware” of former Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene’s removal prior to it happening. It was “equally worrying” that Nene was removed after Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas — who said he was offered the job by the Gupta family at a meeting at their home — told him about the offer.
“Equally worrying is that Minister Van Rooyen who replaced Minister Nene can be placed at the Saxonwold area on at least seven occasions including on the day before he was announced as Minister. This looks anomalous given that at the time he was a Member of Parliament based in Cape Town‚” she said.
“Furthermore one of the two advisers he brought with to National Treasury on his first day at work‚ 11 October 2015 had contact with someone at the Saxonwold area the day before. The co-incidence is a source of great concern‚ ” the Public Protector said.
Madonsela then points her finger directly at the office of the executive.
“If the Gupta family knew about the intended appointment it would appear that information was shared then in violation of section 2.3(e) of the Executive Ethics Code which prohibits members of the executive from the use of information received in confidence in the course of their duties or otherwise than in connection with the discharge of their duties.”
She said the ethic’s code prohibited a member of the executive “from acting in a way that is inconsistent with their position”.
“There might even be a violation of Section 2.3(e) of the Executive Ethics Code which prohibits a member of the Executive from using information received in confidence in the course of their duties otherwise than in connection with the discharge of their duties‚” she said.
She said the failure of the authorities to act on Jonas’s public disclosures about his alleged offer of the finance minister job by the Gupta family in return for further enriching them with state business could contravene the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act.
There had been similar apparent contraventions when no authorities took any steps to investigate the allegations made by former ANC MP Former MP Vytjie Mentor that she too was offered a Cabinet position by the Gupta family.
“The same to applies to persistent allegations regarding an alleged cozy relationship between Mr Brian Molefe and the Gupta family. In this case it is worth noting that such allegations are backed by evidence and a source of concern that nothing seems to have been done regardless of the duty imposed by Section 195 of the Constitution on relevant State functionaries.”
She was deeply concerned over the “extraordinary and unprecedented step”by the Cabinet in intervening in a dispute “between a private company co-owned by the President’s friends and his son.”
“This needs to be looked at in relation to a possible conflict of interest between the President as head of state and his private interest as a friend and father …‚” she said.
She details over four pages her efforts to obtain a response from Zuma during the course of the investigation and his wrangling to avoid answering her questions.
President appears to have violated the Executive Ethics Code: #StateCaptureReport
In the report‚ released late Wednesday afternoon‚ Madonsela wrote of her “observations” of concern.
She said it was “worrying that the Gupta family was aware or may have been aware” of former Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene’s removal prior to it happening. It was “equally worrying” that Nene was removed after Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas — who said he was offered the job by the Gupta family at a meeting at their home — told him about the offer.
“Equally worrying is that Minister Van Rooyen who replaced Minister Nene can be placed at the Saxonwold area on at least seven occasions including on the day before he was announced as Minister. This looks anomalous given that at the time he was a Member of Parliament based in Cape Town‚” she said.
“Furthermore one of the two advisers he brought with to National Treasury on his first day at work‚ 11 October 2015 had contact with someone at the Saxonwold area the day before. The co-incidence is a source of great concern‚ ” the Public Protector said.
Madonsela then points her finger directly at the office of the executive.
“If the Gupta family knew about the intended appointment it would appear that information was shared then in violation of section 2.3(e) of the Executive Ethics Code which prohibits members of the executive from the use of information received in confidence in the course of their duties or otherwise than in connection with the discharge of their duties.”
She said the ethic’s code prohibited a member of the executive “from acting in a way that is inconsistent with their position”.
“There might even be a violation of Section 2.3(e) of the Executive Ethics Code which prohibits a member of the Executive from using information received in confidence in the course of their duties otherwise than in connection with the discharge of their duties‚” she said.
She said the failure of the authorities to act on Jonas’s public disclosures about his alleged offer of the finance minister job by the Gupta family in return for further enriching them with state business could contravene the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act.
There had been similar apparent contraventions when no authorities took any steps to investigate the allegations made by former ANC MP Former MP Vytjie Mentor that she too was offered a Cabinet position by the Gupta family.
“The same to applies to persistent allegations regarding an alleged cozy relationship between Mr Brian Molefe and the Gupta family. In this case it is worth noting that such allegations are backed by evidence and a source of concern that nothing seems to have been done regardless of the duty imposed by Section 195 of the Constitution on relevant State functionaries.”
She was deeply concerned over the “extraordinary and unprecedented step”by the Cabinet in intervening in a dispute “between a private company co-owned by the President’s friends and his son.”
“This needs to be looked at in relation to a possible conflict of interest between the President as head of state and his private interest as a friend and father …‚” she said.
She details over four pages her efforts to obtain a response from Zuma during the course of the investigation and his wrangling to avoid answering her questions.
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