President Jacob Zuma merely apologised but did not resign as had been expected when he addressed the nation last night.
In a 20-minute speech in which he painted a picture of a president who was ignorant to what was expected of him, Zuma said he was unaware that he had failed in his duties – as ruled by the Constitutional Court.
“I wish to emphasise that I never knowingly or deliberately set out to violate the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the Republic.
“I respect the judgment and will abide by it.
“The matter has caused a lot of frustration and confusion, for which I apologise, on my behalf and on behalf of government,” he said.
Zuma said he had always been willing to pay back the money for the Nkandla upgrades and promised to do so as soon as a determination had been made by the national Treasury.
“I wish to confirm in line with the findings of both the court and the public protector, that I did not act dishonestly or with any personal knowledge of the irregularities by the Department of Public Works with regards to the Nkandla project.
“The intention was not in pursuit of corrupt ends or to use state resources to unduly benefit me and my family. Hence I have agreed to pay for the identified items once a determination is made,” he said.
On Thursday, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed the powers of the public protector and made it clear that Zuma should personally pay the costs for the construction of a visitors’ centre‚ amphitheatre‚ cattle kraal‚ chicken run and swimming pool at his Nkandla residence.
Treasury was tasked with determining the extent of non-security expenditure at Nkandla‚ and Zuma’s portion to pay. It has to do this within 60 days while Zuma will have to make his payment within 45 days after the determination by the Treasury.
The court said Zuma had failed to uphold and defend the constitution.
Said Zuma: “I also respect the finding that failure to comply with the remedial action taken against me by the public protector is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic.
“With hindsight, there are many matters that could have been handled differently, and which should never have been allowed to drag on this long, which we deeply regret. I urge all parties to respect the judgement and abide by it.”
Zuma apologises but fails to resign
In a 20-minute speech in which he painted a picture of a president who was ignorant to what was expected of him, Zuma said he was unaware that he had failed in his duties – as ruled by the Constitutional Court.
“I wish to emphasise that I never knowingly or deliberately set out to violate the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the Republic.
“I respect the judgment and will abide by it.
“The matter has caused a lot of frustration and confusion, for which I apologise, on my behalf and on behalf of government,” he said.
Zuma said he had always been willing to pay back the money for the Nkandla upgrades and promised to do so as soon as a determination had been made by the national Treasury.
“I wish to confirm in line with the findings of both the court and the public protector, that I did not act dishonestly or with any personal knowledge of the irregularities by the Department of Public Works with regards to the Nkandla project.
“The intention was not in pursuit of corrupt ends or to use state resources to unduly benefit me and my family. Hence I have agreed to pay for the identified items once a determination is made,” he said.
On Thursday, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed the powers of the public protector and made it clear that Zuma should personally pay the costs for the construction of a visitors’ centre‚ amphitheatre‚ cattle kraal‚ chicken run and swimming pool at his Nkandla residence.
Treasury was tasked with determining the extent of non-security expenditure at Nkandla‚ and Zuma’s portion to pay. It has to do this within 60 days while Zuma will have to make his payment within 45 days after the determination by the Treasury.
The court said Zuma had failed to uphold and defend the constitution.
Said Zuma: “I also respect the finding that failure to comply with the remedial action taken against me by the public protector is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic.
“With hindsight, there are many matters that could have been handled differently, and which should never have been allowed to drag on this long, which we deeply regret. I urge all parties to respect the judgement and abide by it.”
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