Johannesburg - Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s hotly anticipated report on her investigation into the R206 million “security upgrades” to President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence was sent on Fridayto state security organs, her office said.
They had asked to see the provisional report first, to check whether it compromised the president’s security.
Madonsela’s office said they had until Wednesday to comment on this, before other parties would be invited to view it at her offices, a break from her usual practice of sending provisional reports to the affected parties and complainants. Madonsela said the provisional report was confidential. The final report would be made public once comments had been received from all parties and considered.
Her spokesman, Oupa Segalwe, also confirmed that cabinet secretary Cassius Lubisi had called on Thursday to say that legislative changes she had requested to clarify what she should do with reports concerning the conduct of the president were being finalised and it was hoped they would be passed by Parliament before the end of its term.
Madonsela was caught in the crossfire this week as a row blazed over what should become of her Nkandla report.
The ANC turned up the heat as she prepared to hand a provisional report on the investigation to relevant parties, including the Presidency and the complainant, DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko.
Madonsela has complained it is unclear where the final report should go. She said she was supposed to refer matters falling under the Executive Members’ Ethics Act to the president, and this was now a dilemma.
ANC chief whip Stone Sizani slammed Madonsela for “subtly” seeking to “try the president and his executive in a court of public opinion”. He claimed she hadn’t asked for a legislative intervention. But Madonsela said her report of 2010/11, which dealt with Zuma’s failure to declare his interests on time, had done just that – and the proposed changes to the legislation had yet to be finalised.
This week, Madonsela said her office’s relationship with Parliament had been “an area of confusion”. Referring to a proposed “communication protocol” for institutions and Parliament, she said “an instrument that sets everything clear” would leave “less opportunity for drama”.