Cape Town - The most obvious reason for President Jacob Zuma’s surprise offer to pay a portion of the Nkandla costs was that he was facing a court case he might lose, said Professor Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy.
In a statement issued late on Tuesday, a week before the matter was due to be heard in the Constitutional Court, Zuma said he would agree to pay a sum to be determined by the finance minister and the Treasury.
Read: Zuma offers to #PayBackTheMoney
While commentators would be tempted to draw all sorts of political conclusions from the president’s change of heart, after he had been adamant up to now he would not pay anything as he had not requested any of the upgrades at his home, Friedman said the problem was that people assumed “what is going on in their heads is also in the president’s head”, but this wasn’t necessarily the case.
While there was a sense that Zuma had been weakened by the fiasco that followed his firing of then finance minister Nhlanhla Nene in December, the scenario was similar to the Arms Deal case brought by Terry Crawford Browne, in which Zuma capitulated and agreed to establish a commission of inquiry into the matter at the 11th hour.
It was likely his lawyers had advised him to make an offer before Tuesday, when the Constitutional Court is to hear an application brought by the EFF, joined by the DA, for Zuma to be found to have breached his duty to uphold the constitution in failing to comply with the public protector’s remedial action, among others.
The DA said on Wednesday that Zuma found himself in a legal dead alley and had no choice but to propose a settlement that would see him repay state money spent on his private home.
“I think after the judgment by the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) in the (Hlaudi) Motsoeneng matter relating to the power and force of the Public Protector’s remedial action and the fact that a parallel process was found to be unlawful, I think the parallels in this case was clear for all to see,” James Selfe, the chairman of the DA’s federal executive, told the African News Agency (ANA) before going into a meeting with the DA’s legal team on Wednesday morning.
In the Motsoeneng matter last year, the SCA rejected part of the Western Cape High Court ruling which said Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s rulings were not binding.
“He (Zuma) has had to extricate himself from legal difficulty but this is not good enough,” said Selfe.
He said the Constitutional Court would notably have to deal with the fact that Parliament endorsed a report by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko, which directly contradicted Madonsela by finding Zuma did not owe the state a cent for a new swimming pool and other contested items as they were vital for his security.
Read: Madonsela to respond to Zuma’s proposal
“There are many other legal issues that are not addressed by the offer, among them the fact that Parliament sought to second-guess the Public Protector and that the police minister’s report has been accepted by Parliament while it clearly has no force in law.
“So there are a number of issues on which the Constitutional Court will have to pronounce.”
Selfe said Zuma’s offer, contained in a letter sent to the registrar of the court on Tuesday, was a political victory and pointed to nervousness on the part of the ANC ahead of the local government elections.
“The other aspect of it is that the local government elections are going to take place and the president is seen as living in a mansion and being cold and unfeeling while most South Africans are living below the poverty line.”
The DA said the wording of Zuma’s offer was “carefully non-specific, and the DA will not enter into any settlement that would effectively undermine the remedial action expressly prescribed by the Public Protector”.
Nevertheless, the party considered the offer to amount to an admission by Zuma that he benefited unduly from the R246m security upgrades to his home.
DA leader Mmusi Maimane said on radio that his party would not agree to a “settlement that will undermine the public protector”.
EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said the movement would consult its lawyers.
“President Zuma is not responding out of the goodness of his heart or out of understanding the importance of respecting the .... recommendations of the public protector,” Ndlozi said.
The move also comes just more than a week before the president is to deliver this year’s State of the Nation Address.
Parliament has made it clear no points of order or privilege will be entertained during the address following the adoption of new joint rules for the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces, pre-empting the tactic employed by the EFF last year to interrupt Zuma.
Political Bureau, ANA and Reuters