Crowds expected for #Nkandla showdown

Calls for President Jacob Zuma to resign had not been a factor during voter registration. Picture: Simphiwe Mbokazi/Independent Media

Calls for President Jacob Zuma to resign had not been a factor during voter registration. Picture: Simphiwe Mbokazi/Independent Media

Published Feb 9, 2016

Share

Johannesburg - Thousands of people were expected to descend on the Johannesburg CBD on Tuesday for the Constitutional Court hearing on whether President Jacob Zuma is liable to pay for the non-security upgrades at his Nkandla private home.

The EFF and the DA, along with the civil society organisation Corruption Watch, were also expected to argue that the powers of the office of the public protector were enforceable, as per the recommendations on the Nkandla probe.

Also read: High cost of Nkandla exceeds R246m

On Monday, Cope announced that its president, Mosiuoa Lekota, would lead his party’s delegation.

“The issue before the Constitutional Court is of pivotal importance to South Africa. The public protector has to have real power to protect ordinary South Africans against pushy politicians seeking to destroy our constitutionally guaranteed safeguards,” Cope spokesman Dennis Bloem said on Tuesday.

“Remedial actions proposed by the public protector cannot be wilfully ignored by those in power because they are against them. If those powers were rendered ineffectual, politicians would become untouchable and corrupt to the very core.

“The public protector’s office took an enormous battering from the Zuma-led ANC over the last two years. The ruling party sought seriously to damage that office and to tie the hands of the public protector one way or the other,” Bloem added.

Also read: EFF rejects #NkandlaPayback proposal

The EFF has said thousands of its supporters will gather in Mary Fitzgerald Square before they march to the Concourt in Braamfontein.

According to evidence before the court, in the course of implementing that decision, a cattle kraal, chicken run, swimming pool, visitors’ centre and an amphitheatre, among other things, were built at state expense.

In her Secure in Comfort report of March 2014, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela found that these five features were non-security features and that the state funds should not have been used for their construction.

Madonsela recommended remedial action, stating that the president should, with the assistance of the minister of police and the minister of finance, determine the reasonable portion of the costs of those features and repay the state. Zuma, however, in his court documents, submitted that the public protector’s decisions were not legally binding.

Also read: DA to pursue #Nkandla case ‘on principle’

But the main applicants, the EFF and the DA, argue that ignoring Madonsela’s remedial action was a breach of the constitution.

This also forms the crux of the EFF’s, the DA’s and Corruption Watch’s cases. They further submitted that the report of the minister of police, which purports to exonerate the president from any liability, must be set aside because it was irregular.

Both the applicants and the public protector seek clarity on the nature and extent of the public protector’s power to take remedial action.

The Star

Related Topics: