Former president Jacob Zuma would be allowed to keep his presidential benefits should he decide to return to Parliament after next month’s elections.
This is due to a precedent set by former president Kgalema Motlanthe and former deputy president Baleka Mbete, who both renounced lesser salaries to keep their presidential benefits.
The Electoral Court’s decision this week which paved the way for Zuma to run for office in the May 29 general election has raised questions about what happens to his presidential pension should he return to the National Assembly.
According to the Presidential Handbook, when the term of a president comes to an end through a resignation or completion of the electoral term, the president is entitled to a pension benefit as determined by the National Assembly in terms of the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act.
Zuma’s benefits include his salary and most of the perks he enjoyed in office for the rest of his life; this remuneration is larger than that of any other Member of Parliament, other than the president.
Zuma himself may have addressed the issue prior to appointing former president Motlanthe as his deputy in 2011.
It was then Motlanthe, who found himself in a dilemma – whether he should receive the presidential pension due to him for his service from September 2008 until May 2009, as well as his salary as deputy president.
At the time, there was no clarity on whether “retirement” meant Motlanthe should get the taxable pension of 100% of his presidential salary to which he was entitled, as well as the salary as Zuma’s deputy.
South Africa had never before had a presidential pensioner who then returned as deputy president.
In 2009, Zuma asked the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Office Bearers to resolve the issue.
The commission’s chairperson, Judge Willie Seriti, made his recommendations in November 2010 – and these were approved by the National Assembly in 2011.
Judge Seriti decided that Motlanthe was entitled to his presidential pension, but should not also be paid the salary of a deputy president.
Motlanthe renounced the lesser salary – that of deputy president – with his then spokesperson, Thabo Masebe, saying “he would not want to receive two salaries, so he is quite happy to get his pension and not receive any salary for the current work that he does”.
Later, Mbete, who was the deputy president from September 2008 to May 2009 renounced the Speaker of the National Assembly salary when she served her second term in 2014 to 2019.
It appears that Zuma, if elected to the National Assembly, would follow similar steps as the presidential perks are substantial – and for life.
Pensions for retired presidents amounted to 75% of their salary but in April 2008 that was amended by a resolution of Parliament to 100%.
When Zuma resigned as president in 2018 his annual salary was R2 989 845 and his presidential benefits included security and an official vehicle for life and‚ depending on the security assessment done to the former head of the state‚ he could receive an armoured vehicle if at risk.
Other benefits include an office and a secretary and free domestic flights on the national airline.
Political analyst Lukhona Mnguni said the issue of remuneration was not a dilemma for Zuma if he chose to return to Parliament.
“If he returns then he would simply renounce the lesser salary as Baleka Mbete did.
“He will renounce the MP salary and be an MP on a presidential salary as this has significant perks, including security,” Mnguni said.
Another analyst, Professor Sipho Seepe, said Zuma was unlikely to return to Parliament as an MP.
“There are all sorts of permutations and it depends on how well the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) performs.
“Even before people go to Parliament, the parties would have to come to some sort of an agreement and it is likely that he will only take a position if it gives him the possibility of going back as president ... although ultimately I do not think that he will do this.”
Seepe said Zuma had been critical of the ANC as National Executive Committee members of the party were appointed to Parliament and this “undermines the possibility of accountability”.
“He has been very clear that the leadership of a party should not necessarily be in government or in Parliament.
“If the MKP does not do well he would prefer to guide from the outside.
He would want to avoid being a player and the referee,” Seepe said.
The Mercury