Zuma ‘defied’ public protector

Julius Malema leads supporters of the EFF through the streets of Johannesburg to the Constitutional Court where they have challenged President Zuma over the upgrades to his Nkandla home in which they claim he broke the law by disregarding the Public Protector's remedial action. 090216. Picture: Chris Collingridge 797

Julius Malema leads supporters of the EFF through the streets of Johannesburg to the Constitutional Court where they have challenged President Zuma over the upgrades to his Nkandla home in which they claim he broke the law by disregarding the Public Protector's remedial action. 090216. Picture: Chris Collingridge 797

Published Feb 10, 2016

Share

Baldwin Ndaba and Thabiso Thakali

PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma flagrantly defied Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report into the upgrades at his private Nkandla home because he wanted “to protect his ill-gotten gains and hold on to wealth he improperly obtained”.

And by so doing, Zuma had violated the constitution and was in breach of his oath of office. This was the stance by Advocate Wim Trengove, appearing for the EFF, in the Constitutional Court on Tuesday as the furore around the multimillion-rand upgrades at Nkandla reached the apex court in the country.

Trengove led the onslaught against the president, accusing him of wilfully defying Madonsela’s report.

“What we have is a persistent breach of the constitution for almost two years and no explanation for it. He defied her in order to protect his ill-gotten gains… he defied her in order to hold on to wealth he improperly obtained,” said Trengove.

Zuma’s lawyer, advocate Jeremy Gauntlett had yesterday, in a massive climb down, conceded on behalf of the president that in the Nkandla case the remedial action is binding and required the president to comply. Gauntlet added that the minister of police has “shot his bolt” so the president agreed he should not be involved in remedial action.

“We accept it’s not just a recommendation. She (Madonsela) wanted things done... It’s action we must take,” Gauntlett said.

“But we say only the five items identified by public protector (the swimming pool, visitors’ centre, cattle kraal and chicken run and amphitheatre) are non-security related. All others are security related.”

Gauntlett said the Concourt case was a precursor for impeachment proceedings by the DA.

But Trengove maintained Zuma had failed to approach the court and give his explanation about his decision not to implement Madonsela’s recommendations. “He could have come to court and say ‘I am sorry’. It had been because of bad legal advice that he had ignored the administrative findings of the public protector. He had failed to offer any explanation except to say in his affidavit handed today that he was prepared to pay.”

Madonsela had in March 2014 in her report, “Secure in Comfort”, found that Zuma and his family had unduly benefited from the security upgrades of his Nkandla home. She also ordered the president to pay back a portion of certain features which did not meet the requirements of security features at his home.

Madonsela, through her counsel Advocate Gilbert Marcus, told the court she wrote various letters to Zuma informing him that her remedial actions were binding to him, but he ignored it.

Marcus reiterated in court that Zuma had since March 2014 ignored his clients, including instructing the Minister of Police Nathi Nhleko to investigate whether he was liable to pay back the money.

Advocate Anton Katz, SC, lawyer for the DA, dismissed a submission by Gauntlett that the latest court action by his client was a precursor for an impeachment proceedings application by the DA.

Katz said his client had informed no such decision was taken at any of their meetings or caucus. Judgment has been reserved.

Related Topics: