ConCourt hearing on Nkandla pivotal moment for justice‚ says DA

Legal certainty about the powers of the Public Protector‚ and the force and effect of remedial action taken by the Public Protector‚ are vital to the successful functioning of the country’s constitutional democracy‚ the Democratic Alliance says.

It said that is why the party had opted not to accept any settlement “erroneously” offered by President Jacob Zuma last week and would proceed with arguments before the Constitutional Court on Tuesday and hopefully secure victory for accountability.

“The President’s settlement offer amounts to nothing more than a PR stunt to shield himself from full accountability in the matter relating to the upgrades of his private residence at Nkandla to the tune of R246 million‚” DA federal executive chairperson James Selfe said on Monday.

“Bizarrely‚ the President in an eleventh-hour settlement offer has taken it upon himself to cherry-pick one such remedial action out of the four ordered by the Public Protector in her report entitled Secure in Comfort. Namely‚ the President offered to pay back a portion of the upgrades as determined by the Auditor-General (A-G) in consultation with the Minister of Finance‚” Selfe added.

In addition to this amounting to a “parallel process” prohibited by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)‚ it was a mockery to the remedies ordered by the Public Protector and was a culmination of the contempt and disrespect the ANC and President Zuma had had for a critical constitutional institution throughout this four-year debacle‚” Selfe asserted.

“Fully appreciating the importance of such institutions‚ The DA filed its founding affidavit seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court in a matter which has already been enrolled in the Western Cape High Court relating to the Public Protector’s report on Nkandla. While the DA’s contentions are similar to those of the EFF‚ they are not identical.

“Specifically‚ the DA in its separate review application argues that President Zuma’s failure to engage rationally with the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action pertaining to him was manifestly irrational‚ illegal and unconstitutional.

“We furthermore contend that the President’s decision to substitute the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector with a decision that the Police Minister report on whether he was liable for any of the costs was illegal and unconstitutional‚” Selfe stated.

Moreover‚ the DA argued that the National Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee’s endorsement of the Police Minister’s report was similarly irrational and should be set aside‚ as should the decision of the National Assembly to accept the report of the Ad Hoc Committee.

“We hope that the Constitutional Court will consider all three cases in order to provide legal certainty about the Public Protector’s powers. The DA has developed the law to large degree in the Schippers & SCA judgments in the matter relating to SABC and Hlaudi Motsoeneng and trusts that the Constitutional Court will rule definitively on the matter‚” Selfe added.