Cape Town - Public Protector Thuli Madonsela is “surprised” by Parliament’s decision not to clarify aspects of her Nkandla report before coming to conclusions, but respects its course of action.
Responding to the debate on the Nkandla ad hoc committee’s report on the matter and Parliament’s adoption of the report in a rowdy session on Thursday, Madonsela said the ad hoc committee had been “well within its rights” to decide whether to invite her to present her report.
Spokesman Oupa Segalwe said Madonsela had no comment on the findings of the committee.
The committee, which consisted only of ANC members after an opposition walkout, found President Jacob Zuma had not violated his constitutional obligations in failing to protect public resources, as Madonsela had found.
She had said in her report by failing to intervene to stop lavish expenditure on his home, Zuma tacitly accepted the addition of elements that were not security-related and benefited unduly by the addition of value to his property at public expense.
As head of the executive, Zuma had a constitutional duty to ensure public resources were handled responsibly.
But the committee argued only the Constitutional Court could make a finding that the president had failed to meet such obligations.
It also differed with Madonsela on the question of undue benefit, saying she was not a security expert and could therefore not come to such a conclusion.
In relying on assessments done by the SAPS on the security features installed, Madonsela had not taken into consideration that the assessments and design of the features had not been done in accordance with procedure stated in a cabinet memo of 2003.
Legal advice to the committee, in considering whether a civil case of undue benefit could be pursued against the president, concluded it would be “premature” to make such a finding in the absence of an assessment done in accordance with the cabinet memorandum.
The committee instructed the cabinet to get qualified experts to assess which features, including a swimming pool, cattle kraal, chicken run, visitors’ centre and amphitheatre, could be considered bona fide security.
Madonsela had instructed Zuma to work with the Treasury and SAPS to determine a reasonable portion of costs associated with these, which he should repay.
The committee also found, unlike Madonsela, that Zuma had taken steps to put a stop to the extravagance, as an interministerial task team investigation, of which the president must have been informed, was instituted by Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi in December 2012.
Zuma had also issued a proclamation last year for the Special Investigating Unit to probe wrongdoing in the project, leading to disciplinary steps taken against a number of officials and a civil claim of R155m against architect Minenhle Makhanya.
Madonsela’s report said the first public knowledge of overspending at Nkandla had come via a newspaper report in 2009, before construction had even begun, to which the Presidency had responded by denying public funds were being spent on the president’s private home.
The Public Works probe began only three years later, by which time costs had escalated to more than R200m and Madonsela had started her investigation.
“All we can say is that we were surprised that Parliament didn’t think we could assist by shedding light on the contents of the report,” Segalwe said.
“Listening to the comments on the report we could tell that there were misunderstandings on what we said or didn’t say in the report, things we could have clarified.”
It was “unusual” for an agency to issue a report and Parliament not to request it to assist in understanding it. “But, again, we respect Parliament’s decision to do it in its own way,” Segalwe said.
However, should anyone choose to challenge Parliament’s report in court, the protector would follow a previous commitment to join the proceedings as a friend of the court.
Weekend Argus