POLICE Minister Nathi Mthethwa has claimed that Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s provisional report on the upgrades to President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home contains several state security breaches which needed to be identified for the public protector to omit.In an affidavit filed in the high court in Pretoria on Friday, Mthethwa said the release of the provisional report to other parties without prior authorisation by the ministers in government’s security cluster was unlawful and carried with it a criminal penalty.
He said the law precluded Madonsela from releasing classified, top secret and confidential information which might compromise the security of the president.
Mthethwa had filed the affidavit on behalf of himself, defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, state security minister Siyabonga Cwele and minister of public works, Thulas Nxesi.
The ministers were seeking an extension until November 15 to respond to the provisional report the public protector had handed them on November 1.
On Friday, they brought an urgent application in the high court in Pretoria to interdict and restrain Madonsela from releasing the provisional report to “affected, implicated and affected parties” for comments, pending their response to it.
The urgent application was postponed by agreement between the ministers and the public protector to allow Madonsela to file her answering affidavit by November 12 and for the ministers to file their replying affidavits the next day.
In their application the ministers also asked that Madonsela submit a revised provisional report based on their written comments and inputs so that they could determine whether the security concerns raised had been addressed.
In the event that Madonsela failed to address their security concerns in her “revised” provisional report, government asked that it be granted leave to approach the court for appropriate relief.
The ministers received the provisional report on November 1 and had until November 6 to raise concerns about anything that may compromise Zuma’s security. They had asked for an extension until November 15 because the 357-page report was voluminous.
Madonsela had extended the deadline until November 8, stating she would release the report a day later, regardless of whether the ministers had responded.
Mthethwa said the report required the attention of at least four national departments and time was needed to ensure Zuma’s security was not compromised: “On this basis alone, common sense dictates that an extremely short timeframe imposed on the to comment was wholly unreasonable and untenable to achieve.”
He said the public protector was obliged to provide reasonable opportunity to the ministers to comment on her provisional report and identify aspects of that report that must be omitted because they breached state security and put the safety of the president at risk.
Mthethwa said the process of identifying breaches of state security in her report was "cumbersome” and that the public protector was obliged to allow government more time to examine it
He said the four departments had appointed a team of government officials who are experts on security matters to examine the report. According to Mthethwa, these officials were working around the clock to ensure that government’s input and comments were given to the public protector in a reasonable time.
Nkandla report could breach state security: Minister
In an affidavit filed in the high court in Pretoria on Friday, Mthethwa said the release of the provisional report to other parties without prior authorisation by the ministers in government’s security cluster was unlawful and carried with it a criminal penalty.
He said the law precluded Madonsela from releasing classified, top secret and confidential information which might compromise the security of the president.
Mthethwa had filed the affidavit on behalf of himself, defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, state security minister Siyabonga Cwele and minister of public works, Thulas Nxesi.
The ministers were seeking an extension until November 15 to respond to the provisional report the public protector had handed them on November 1.
On Friday, they brought an urgent application in the high court in Pretoria to interdict and restrain Madonsela from releasing the provisional report to “affected, implicated and affected parties” for comments, pending their response to it.
The urgent application was postponed by agreement between the ministers and the public protector to allow Madonsela to file her answering affidavit by November 12 and for the ministers to file their replying affidavits the next day.
In their application the ministers also asked that Madonsela submit a revised provisional report based on their written comments and inputs so that they could determine whether the security concerns raised had been addressed.
In the event that Madonsela failed to address their security concerns in her “revised” provisional report, government asked that it be granted leave to approach the court for appropriate relief.
The ministers received the provisional report on November 1 and had until November 6 to raise concerns about anything that may compromise Zuma’s security. They had asked for an extension until November 15 because the 357-page report was voluminous.
Madonsela had extended the deadline until November 8, stating she would release the report a day later, regardless of whether the ministers had responded.
Mthethwa said the report required the attention of at least four national departments and time was needed to ensure Zuma’s security was not compromised: “On this basis alone, common sense dictates that an extremely short timeframe imposed on the to comment was wholly unreasonable and untenable to achieve.”
He said the public protector was obliged to provide reasonable opportunity to the ministers to comment on her provisional report and identify aspects of that report that must be omitted because they breached state security and put the safety of the president at risk.
Mthethwa said the process of identifying breaches of state security in her report was "cumbersome” and that the public protector was obliged to allow government more time to examine it
He said the four departments had appointed a team of government officials who are experts on security matters to examine the report. According to Mthethwa, these officials were working around the clock to ensure that government’s input and comments were given to the public protector in a reasonable time.
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