Berning Ntlemeza’s overzealousness is remarkable. The Hawks boss insists that Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan answer his questions within a deadline and without debate.
President Jacob Zuma’s conduct in the saga is also remarkable: he has undertaken to follow the “prescripts of the law” in dealing with the Hawks v Gordhan saga.
Zuma’s undertaking not to “interfere” with the investigation conducted by the Hawks on the so-called rogue unit within the SA Revenue Service is refreshing.
Don’t we all wish following the “prescripts of the law”, starting with the oath of office, was at least one thing our president was good at?
Had he been following the “prescripts of the law” he would have taken himself out of the basket of Africa’s looters in which his legacy is now manifestly sealed.
Ironically, this follower of “prescripts of the law” is yet to answer some critical questions from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela on Nkandla, three years since they were put to him.
Ntlemeza’s struggles in relation to the list of questions posed to Gordhan and Madonsela’s frustration in trying to get Zuma to answer questions sent to him makes for an interesting comparison.
Ntlemeza gave Gordhan 27 questions. Madonsela gave Zuma a list of 29 questions. Madonsela’s attempt to get answers from Zuma proved to be more than a tall order that yielded little.
Madonsela’s agony started on January 29 2013, when she asked Zuma to provide a copy of a registered bond to corroborate a statement he made in parliament to the effect that he and his family financed the construction of the Nkandla homestead with a bond.
She received no response.
In 2013, she approached the Presidency three times all to no avail. On July 29, she wrote to Zuma and, again, got no response.
On August 11 2013, Madonsela met Zuma shortly before she conducted an in-loco inspection of the Nkandla homestead. In that meeting, she handed him the list of questions.
Zuma agreed to provide a written response. On August 26 2013 a desperate Madonsela approached the Presidency’s director-general Dr Cassius Lubisi for assistance.
Although Zuma had already been given the list of questions, the Presidency (his office) requested a copy.
Madonsela obliged and presented the Presidency with the list on August 27.
Still no answer was forthcoming.
On September 16, Madonsela wrote directly to Zuma requesting a response.
Finally on October 1, Zuma submitted a statement to Madonsela explaining the importance of his being safe and secure at Nkandla. No copy of a registered bond was presented to Madonsela and Zuma ducked a number of questions posed to him, including whether he knew about the costs. On October 8 Madonsela wrote to Zuma providing a list of questions he didn’t answer and further asking for evidence of the statement he made in parliament that he was servicing a home loan.
On October 24, Zuma told Madonsela that the bond disclosure she needed was “unnecessary”.
He further demanded any “evidence” in Madonsela’s possession that informed her line of questioning.
He also stated that the contractors at Nkandla were hired by him and his family. He said government officials who were assigned to install security upgrades found his contractors on site.
In her report, Secure in Comfort, released in March 2014, Madonsela, on this issue of the list of questions, concluded: “I never received a further response from the president to the questions posed to him.”
Back to Ntlemeza. He made one follow-up and he immediately showed signs of exasperation. He has since made two follow ups. Gordhan missed two deadlines.
This pales into insignificance compared to the run-around that Zuma, the head of the executive – who is supposed to set standards for cabinet ministers – gave Madonsela.
What makes Zuma’s conduct even more disconcerting is that he had been found by Madonsela herself on an unrelated matter to have been “tardy”.
But Ntlemeza should be grateful that, unlike Madonsela, he is getting reasons from Gordhan for the delay in providing answers. Gordhan was preparing the budget for the country and is now trying to charm sceptical rating agencies to stop South Africa from being downgraded to junk status.
For her part, poor Madonsela was left to figure out on her own why Zuma was not answering her questions.
She had no option but to send countless reminders to Zuma’s office.
Zuma’s assistants and high-ranking officials knew their boss was eluding the public protector. This is the same boss who in terms of Section 181 of the constitution is obliged to lead the executive and all organs of state to “assist” and “protect” the public protector and to “ensure the dignity” and “effectiveness” of her office.
In fact, Madonsela suffered the indignity of being harassed by ANC politicians and other presidential sycophants after Zuma opened the floodgates for such unconstitutional conduct.
Unlike the lucky fish Ntlemeza, Madonsela was even investigated for allegedly spying for the US government.
With this in the minds of the Constitutional Court judges who heard the matter of Zuma’s refusal to respect the public protector’s findings, Zuma will be extremely lucky to escape a ruling tailor-made for impeachment proceedings in parliament.
But I digress. In Gordhan’s case, Ntlemeza has a lot going for him. He has the backing of a president and his security cluster ministers.
With all the political support he has, Ntlemeza can just relax – and be strong. If his lucky stars multiply he will get a response from Gordhan before rating agencies decide on whether we get junk status.
Otherwise, Gordhan is too busy trying to sell a good story about the country, a story that excludes Ntlemeza’s conduct and probably Zuma’s.
One hopes Gordhan will beat Zuma’s tardy record by responding to the Hawks eventually.
Mpumelelo Mkhabela is the editor of Sowetan
Gordhan and Protector in sad tale of two lists
President Jacob Zuma’s conduct in the saga is also remarkable: he has undertaken to follow the “prescripts of the law” in dealing with the Hawks v Gordhan saga.
Zuma’s undertaking not to “interfere” with the investigation conducted by the Hawks on the so-called rogue unit within the SA Revenue Service is refreshing.
Don’t we all wish following the “prescripts of the law”, starting with the oath of office, was at least one thing our president was good at?
Had he been following the “prescripts of the law” he would have taken himself out of the basket of Africa’s looters in which his legacy is now manifestly sealed.
Ironically, this follower of “prescripts of the law” is yet to answer some critical questions from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela on Nkandla, three years since they were put to him.
Ntlemeza’s struggles in relation to the list of questions posed to Gordhan and Madonsela’s frustration in trying to get Zuma to answer questions sent to him makes for an interesting comparison.
Ntlemeza gave Gordhan 27 questions. Madonsela gave Zuma a list of 29 questions. Madonsela’s attempt to get answers from Zuma proved to be more than a tall order that yielded little.
Madonsela’s agony started on January 29 2013, when she asked Zuma to provide a copy of a registered bond to corroborate a statement he made in parliament to the effect that he and his family financed the construction of the Nkandla homestead with a bond.
She received no response.
In 2013, she approached the Presidency three times all to no avail. On July 29, she wrote to Zuma and, again, got no response.
On August 11 2013, Madonsela met Zuma shortly before she conducted an in-loco inspection of the Nkandla homestead. In that meeting, she handed him the list of questions.
Zuma agreed to provide a written response. On August 26 2013 a desperate Madonsela approached the Presidency’s director-general Dr Cassius Lubisi for assistance.
Although Zuma had already been given the list of questions, the Presidency (his office) requested a copy.
Madonsela obliged and presented the Presidency with the list on August 27.
Still no answer was forthcoming.
On September 16, Madonsela wrote directly to Zuma requesting a response.
Finally on October 1, Zuma submitted a statement to Madonsela explaining the importance of his being safe and secure at Nkandla. No copy of a registered bond was presented to Madonsela and Zuma ducked a number of questions posed to him, including whether he knew about the costs. On October 8 Madonsela wrote to Zuma providing a list of questions he didn’t answer and further asking for evidence of the statement he made in parliament that he was servicing a home loan.
On October 24, Zuma told Madonsela that the bond disclosure she needed was “unnecessary”.
He further demanded any “evidence” in Madonsela’s possession that informed her line of questioning.
He also stated that the contractors at Nkandla were hired by him and his family. He said government officials who were assigned to install security upgrades found his contractors on site.
In her report, Secure in Comfort, released in March 2014, Madonsela, on this issue of the list of questions, concluded: “I never received a further response from the president to the questions posed to him.”
Back to Ntlemeza. He made one follow-up and he immediately showed signs of exasperation. He has since made two follow ups. Gordhan missed two deadlines.
This pales into insignificance compared to the run-around that Zuma, the head of the executive – who is supposed to set standards for cabinet ministers – gave Madonsela.
What makes Zuma’s conduct even more disconcerting is that he had been found by Madonsela herself on an unrelated matter to have been “tardy”.
But Ntlemeza should be grateful that, unlike Madonsela, he is getting reasons from Gordhan for the delay in providing answers. Gordhan was preparing the budget for the country and is now trying to charm sceptical rating agencies to stop South Africa from being downgraded to junk status.
For her part, poor Madonsela was left to figure out on her own why Zuma was not answering her questions.
She had no option but to send countless reminders to Zuma’s office.
Zuma’s assistants and high-ranking officials knew their boss was eluding the public protector. This is the same boss who in terms of Section 181 of the constitution is obliged to lead the executive and all organs of state to “assist” and “protect” the public protector and to “ensure the dignity” and “effectiveness” of her office.
In fact, Madonsela suffered the indignity of being harassed by ANC politicians and other presidential sycophants after Zuma opened the floodgates for such unconstitutional conduct.
Unlike the lucky fish Ntlemeza, Madonsela was even investigated for allegedly spying for the US government.
With this in the minds of the Constitutional Court judges who heard the matter of Zuma’s refusal to respect the public protector’s findings, Zuma will be extremely lucky to escape a ruling tailor-made for impeachment proceedings in parliament.
But I digress. In Gordhan’s case, Ntlemeza has a lot going for him. He has the backing of a president and his security cluster ministers.
With all the political support he has, Ntlemeza can just relax – and be strong. If his lucky stars multiply he will get a response from Gordhan before rating agencies decide on whether we get junk status.
Otherwise, Gordhan is too busy trying to sell a good story about the country, a story that excludes Ntlemeza’s conduct and probably Zuma’s.
One hopes Gordhan will beat Zuma’s tardy record by responding to the Hawks eventually.
Mpumelelo Mkhabela is the editor of Sowetan
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