‘What good came of it?’ - Derek Hanekom wants Malema to spill the tea on Nkandla meeting

"Perhaps those who flew by helicopter to meet with former president Jacob Zuma to have tea with him could tell us what good they think came out of that meeting?"

This is the question posed on social media by ANC stalwart Derek Hanekom as SA reacts to Zuma's refusal to testify before the state capture inquiry.

Zuma was expected to testify before the inquiry from February 15 to 19, but his lawyer Eric Mabuza said he was still awaiting the outcome of a review for deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo to recuse himself as chairperson of the inquiry.

Malema, former EFF national chairperson and party spokesperson Vuyani Pambo and  others met Zuma at his Nkandla homestead last week after Malema reached out to him on social media and asked for an urgent meeting.

Although neither Malema nor Zuma would disclose the agenda of their meeting, sources who spoke to the Sunday Times revealed the meeting was organised by the Zuma faction in the ANC.

They said among issues discussed was Zuma's defiance of the inquiry and the ruling by the ConCourt which ordered him to appear and give evidence before the commission.

It remains to be seen if Malema will respond to Hanekom.

Last week, Hanekom described the meeting between the two former rivals as “a joke”.

Malema responded by telling the former tourism minister the discussion between himself and Zuma was “a meeting of black people”.

On Monday Zondo said Zuma's reason for defiance has no merit.

Evidence leader Paul Pretorius said the former president, who has been implicated by at least 40 witnesses so far, was duty-bound to inform the public about what happened during his tenure as the country's president.

“Mr Zuma has been implicated by at least 40 witnesses. What happened during the presidency of Mr Zuma and his knowledge of some events is important to the work of this commission,” he said.

“Mr Zuma, more than anyone else, should assist the commission to understand what happened in the period under review. The public have a right to know what their president did or did not do.”

TimesLIVE