Johannesburg – Judgement was reserved by Constitutional Court on Tuesday in an application by the Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters on whether the failure to comply with remedial action set out by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela constituted a breach of constitutional duties by President Jacob Zuma and the National Assembly.
The day’s proceedings saw Jeremy Gauntlett, arguing for Zuma, conceding and agreeing with the two political parties’ contention that Madonsela’s 2014 report on irregular spending during the course of a security upgrade at the president’s rural home was binding.
Read: #Nkandla case: Zuma accepts report binding
In another extraordinary admission, Gauntlett told the court that Police Minister Nathi Nhleko’s controversial parallel report on Nkandla that found that Zuma did not have to pay a cent back to state for improvements unrelated to security was irrelevant and did not form part of the president’s arguments in court.
Gauntlett’s move of thus dismissing Nhleko’s report drew gasps and whispers of disbelief from the court public gallery. EFF leader Julius Malema nodded his head in silent agreement with Gauntlett.
Read: #Nkandla case: Zuma impeachment fears
Linda Nkosi-Thomas, for National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete drew the ire of the justices as she tried absolving the National Assembly from any possible dereliction of constitutional duties regarding Madonsela’s report.
That report was driven through Parliament by the ANC majority, and prompted opposition parties to go to court to enforce Madonsela’s findings.
She argued that Madonsela did not give any instructions to Parliament.
Read: #Nkandla case: ‘Zuma looted the State’
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng asked Nkosi-Thomas whether it was not the responsibility of bodies such as the National Assembly to hold Zuma accountable based on Madonsela’s findings. Nkosi-Thomas replied that Madonsela could not direct Parliament as to the execution of its duties.
“The Public Protector does not have the power to direct Parliament… she cannot dictate to Parliament,” she argued.
“As argued earlier by my learned friends, the report remains binding, yes, it is binding to the president, our is a different function… ours is not an enforcement mechanism such that of the sheriff of the court. She [Madonsela] cannot expect Parliament to merely rubber stamp [her report] without applying its mind. The role of Parliament is different,” she said.
William Mukhari, for Nhleko, said his brief was merely to tell the court how his client was asked to execute his duties.
“We were given specific instructions by Parliament as to what we needed to do and did exactly that… but then the question would be whether the one who gave out that instruction had the power to do so, hence I am arguing that the minister depended on the power and the authority of the National Assembly to carry out the instructions.”
He explained to the court how Nhleko was drawn drawn into the Nkandla matter, which was by following instructions to investigate with the assistance of the security experts, and to find out whether Madonsela’s findings on non security features were apt.
At the end of the arguments by all counsels, Wim Trengove, for the EFF, replied and told the court that Zuma had persistently breached the constitution without giving any explanation.
“It is not enough for the president to come and say he will pay back the money… no. The Public Protector was mistreated for over two years, the president failed in his duties to uphold the constitution.”
Earlier, Trengove argued that Zuma had failed to obey the law in order to hold on to “ill-gotten wealth” in the form of luxuries, including a swimming pool, added to his home at taxpayer’s expense.
African News Agency
* Use IOL’s Facebook and Twitter pages to comment on our stories. See links below.