The ANC says it will have to act to find out the exact reasons why parliament was given the wrong legal advice on how to deal with the Nkandla debacle as well as the Public Protector’s findings.
This is according to newly appointed ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu, who held his first press conference in the position yesterday.
Speaking to the media yesterday following Tuesday’s failed motion to remove President Jacob Zuma, Mthembu said the ANC was not a party of “sycophants” of President Jacob Zuma.
All except 14 absent MPs voted against the motion to impeach Zuma.
On the legal advice received by parliament and the Nkandla ad hoc committee, Mthembu said even their own colleagues had warned them that their position on dealing with the Nkandla matter was incorrect.
“What blinded us so much when even other colleagues of ours were saying to us ‘we think you are in the wrong’? They said so to us. They said that to our face. What blinded us?
“If we have people who are wrongly advising us and if government has people who wrongly advise them, we leave that to government, but as parliament we have to act on who advised us wrongly.
“We might continue to receive on other matters, wrong advice that is not properly looked at. We will have to act, in my view,” said Mthembu.
He conceded that they could have received better advice.
“If we have the Supreme Court of Appeal and we have the Constitutional Court coming to the same conclusion on the binding matter, what advice are we getting as the state?
“Can we really rely on the advice we are getting as the state? This is one issue we will be raising when we meet with the speaker.
“The type of advice and the type of people we have that advise parliament. In this instance were we advised correctly and in our view we were not and therefore we acted inconsistently with even the role of parliament and how we should have dealt with this particular matter in hindsight,” said Mthembu.
With regard to the party and Zuma’s apology following the court ruling, Mthembu said the ANC parliamentary caucus was also humbling itself.
“If I were to speak for the ANC caucus, indeed we are also sorry because we gave an impression that indeed what we did was correct and what we recommended was correct.
“We are not saying we want to apologise or we want to say parliament acted correctly, but the court said no we did not.”
Mthembu said it was also important to note the fact that, before the Concourt declared conclusively that the Public Protector’s remedial actions were binding, lower courts had held different opinions on the matter.
“Further, the fact that the president explicitly committed before the court to fully implement the remedial actions of the Public Protector demonstrated absence of deliberate or malicious intention to act inconsistently with the Constitution.”
ANC to act on poor Nkandla legal input
This is according to newly appointed ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu, who held his first press conference in the position yesterday.
Speaking to the media yesterday following Tuesday’s failed motion to remove President Jacob Zuma, Mthembu said the ANC was not a party of “sycophants” of President Jacob Zuma.
All except 14 absent MPs voted against the motion to impeach Zuma.
On the legal advice received by parliament and the Nkandla ad hoc committee, Mthembu said even their own colleagues had warned them that their position on dealing with the Nkandla matter was incorrect.
“What blinded us so much when even other colleagues of ours were saying to us ‘we think you are in the wrong’? They said so to us. They said that to our face. What blinded us?
“If we have people who are wrongly advising us and if government has people who wrongly advise them, we leave that to government, but as parliament we have to act on who advised us wrongly.
“We might continue to receive on other matters, wrong advice that is not properly looked at. We will have to act, in my view,” said Mthembu.
He conceded that they could have received better advice.
“If we have the Supreme Court of Appeal and we have the Constitutional Court coming to the same conclusion on the binding matter, what advice are we getting as the state?
“Can we really rely on the advice we are getting as the state? This is one issue we will be raising when we meet with the speaker.
“The type of advice and the type of people we have that advise parliament. In this instance were we advised correctly and in our view we were not and therefore we acted inconsistently with even the role of parliament and how we should have dealt with this particular matter in hindsight,” said Mthembu.
With regard to the party and Zuma’s apology following the court ruling, Mthembu said the ANC parliamentary caucus was also humbling itself.
“If I were to speak for the ANC caucus, indeed we are also sorry because we gave an impression that indeed what we did was correct and what we recommended was correct.
“We are not saying we want to apologise or we want to say parliament acted correctly, but the court said no we did not.”
Mthembu said it was also important to note the fact that, before the Concourt declared conclusively that the Public Protector’s remedial actions were binding, lower courts had held different opinions on the matter.
“Further, the fact that the president explicitly committed before the court to fully implement the remedial actions of the Public Protector demonstrated absence of deliberate or malicious intention to act inconsistently with the Constitution.”
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