Nkandla committee backs Nhleko report

President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla residence in rural KwaZulu-Natal.

President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla residence in rural KwaZulu-Natal.

Published Aug 6, 2015

Share

Parliament – The ANC on Thursday night voted down proposals by opposition parties to reflect the Public Protector’s adverse findings against President Jacob Zuma over excessive spending on his Nkandla home in a report to the National Assembly.

This means that the third parliamentary ad hoc committee mulling the Nkandla controversy will on Friday submit a report to the legislature recommending that it endorse Police Minister Nathi Nhleko’s conclusion that Zuma need not repay the state for any part of the project.

The ANC’s findings began by saying the public had long been “misled about the opulence of the residence of the president” and added that there was a gross exaggeration of the multi-million rand security upgrade that has spawned six different official reports and as many years of mounting scandal.

The ruling party held that Nhleko’s report - which described a swimming pool, amphitheatre, cattle kraal and visitors’ centre at Zuma’s homestead as security features - was the proper conclusion to a parliamentary processes surrounding the project and explicitly endorsed it.

The committee put the conflicting proposals of the ANC and the opposition to the vote, and the ruling party prevailed by seven votes to four.

After the vote, ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakude said: “We feel that we have dealt with this the right way. The Public Protector’s report said one thing and then we went to Nkandla and saw it is not like that, there is no luxury. All the things that she picked out, the police minister found that they were security features.”

She added that the opposition’s stance was a symptom of “an obsession with Zuma”.

“Wherever there is wrongdoing they think it must attach to him, to one man. We cannot allow that.”

The opposition’s counter proposal noted that legally, all other organs of state must assist chapter nine institutions, including the Public Protector.

Corne Mulder from the Freedom Front Plus said it was clear from the moment the ANC opposed calling Public Protector Thuli Madonsela to explain her findings on Nkandla, that the committee was heading for a partisan split.

The opposition walked out of an earlier ad hoc committee on Nkandla last year because the ANC would not agree that her findings were legally binding on the executive.

Mulder said this time opposition parties had participated because it would strengthen their position in the likely event of a legal challenge to the parliamentary process.

“The challenge will be on the basis that Parliament, as an organ of State, failed to engage with the Public Protector,” he said.

Mulder said some nine parties would join forces to launch the legal challenge. He said the Economic Freedom Fighters — the only party that boycotted the committee - could add its name to the list of applicants.

“But its position might be complicated because it did not take part in the committee.”

Earlier in the day, EFF leader Julius Malema had again used a presidential question session in the National Assembly to ask Zuma when he would repay money spent on Nkandla.

After the president refused to answer the question, saying the matter was still before the committee, he retorted: “It is very clear we will never get an answer, Mr President. Let’s meet in court.”

ANA

Related Topics: