The Public Protector Thuli Madonsela has given the strongest indication yet that President Jacob Zuma will emerge unscathed after her probe into the controversy surrounding the more than R250 million spent on his private residence in Nkandla.
Madonsela told The Sunday Independent’s sister paper Sunday Tribune yesterday that it was possible South Africans baying for the president’s blood over the expenditure would be “disappointed” at the contents of her provisional report.
The development has elicited strong reaction from the DA, which has vowed to fight to the bitter end for answers.
Although she steadfastly refused to discuss the content of her provisional report, Madonsela also revealed that:
- The report was on Friday handed directly to ministers in the presidential security cluster and “nobody else”.
- She met once with Zuma to interview him about his homestead, and “he never asked for the investigation to be dropped”.
- The Presidency provided access to all documents required.
- The security cluster head has to make sure only that the president’s security is not compromised, and will not have a final say on the provisional and final report.
- She intends to make the final report, due in a month, public.
The public protector also revealed a glimpse of the difficulties she has faced in the two years since the Nkandla investigation started.
She said there was a difference between what the law or the ministerial handbook prescribed and what she, as public protector, thought was wrong or right.
Madonsela said: “I cannot comment on the contents of the report… But there’s a real chance that we may come out and say things aren’t really as bad as they seem.”
And, in what appeared to be a dismissal of claims that costs may have been inflated to fleece tax payers during the security upgrade, she added: “I’m not in a position to say we’ve made adverse findings – I can’t confirm that. (But) you may just find that the money that was spent was exactly the right amount.”
“It is possible that people may be disappointed because we work with the law. If the law authorised them to spend that money, I may disagree in my personal view and say this shouldn’t have happened, but if the law allows it, you can just say: ‘Please change the law’.”
The DA’s parliamentary leader, Lindiwe Mazibuko, said she was willing to exhaust all possible to avenues to ensure accountability.
“We’re willing to do whatever is necessary to get the information that will enable us to hold the president accountable, and to enable voters to ask themselves if this is the man they want re-elected.”
Mazibuko, who lodged the original complaint with Madonsela’s office, said she was concerned about the public protector’s “desire to ensure that ministers in the security cluster are ‘satisfied’ with the report by giving it to them to vet.”
“One of the major problems with this issue is ministers using security clearance to protect the president politically. I’d hate to see that happen to the public protector’s report, as it happened to the Nkandla report,” she said.
Although she had not seen the report, Mazibuko said legality could never be used as justification for what was “wrong ethically”.
Ministers of state security, police, justice and defence have until Wednesday to comment on whether the report compromises the president’s security, but Madonsela said that changes could only be made to the wording, and not to the composition, of the report. She was adamant that its contents would not put Zuma’s security in jeopardy.
“From my point of view, nothing that we’ve included in the report undermines the president’s security. We took great care not to describe security features. We were concerned more on the justifiability of the measures, the cost of measures, and the procurement process that was involved,” said Madonsela.
Madonsela described her relationship with Zuma as “excellent”, saying he was a “warm human being, very affirming, who deals with me cordially”.
Although the DA has expressed its misgivings that, if the report is given to Parliament, it will be “buried” behind a closed committee, Madonsela said she would not allow it to be altered or kept under wraps.
“Any report of the public protector is a public report. Whether I gave it to the president, I also give it to the public. That goes for every report I’ve ever given to the president, it’s always been made public. I have the power to do so. Unfortunately, it’s another month before we can tell the people of South Africa what we’ve found…”
Madonsela said the Nkandla report, like all those undertaken by her office, could clarify what happened in Nkandla.
“It will also clarify what should have happened. It will also indicate, if what happened was wrong; in future how do we deal with it. Also, if there’s any remedy for any wrongdoing, it will indicate what should that remedy be…”
Mazibuko said: “If there are legislative problems like there were with the ministerial handbook, they’ll need to be changed because the public outcry, regardless of what the legal facts are, is to the extent that it is immoral, unethical for a sitting president, a head of state, to spend that kind of money on his personal home, which doesn’t belong to the state, doesn’t belong to the government, given public property that he’ll enjoy benefits of long after he has left office.
“That is fundamentally unacceptable to the people of South Africa who’ve expressed that outrage for over a year now. So, whatever the legal parameters may be – if they’re too lenient then they have to change.
“When he leaves office after the mandatory two terms, if he gets a second term, he’ll still have a house worth over R300 million, courtesy of the taxpayer. He’ll be able to sell that house if he decided to.
“So it’s frustrating that there’s an office to hide, not by public protector, to try and justify this expenditure by using every trick in the book; apartheid legislation – it’s a national keypoint; it’s in the presidential handbook, it’s a prestige project, it’s allowed, it’s fine.
“All of these are tactics which the government tried when ministers overspent on luxury cars. It’s irrelevant.
“The point is that it’s unacceptable to the public, who are the bosses of the president. He’s not their king, he’s not doing them a favour by being in office. And if members of the public are outraged and angry, the right thing to do is to say ‘enough, we’re putting a stop to this project, we’re conducting an investigation’,” she said.
Mazibuko said the Department of Public Works was constitutionally duty-bound to report to Parliament on its work, instead of hiding behind apartheid-era legislation and trying to classify reports.
“In a fair and just system Nxesi would have tabled that report to his own portfolio committee in Parliament, the MPS who hold him accountable for his actions.
“They would have scrutinised the report and they would have made recommendations or called for an inquiry. The fact that we have to go to court for something that should be in the public sphere is unacceptable. We’ve been forced into a corner.”
UDM leader Bantu Holomisa, said the public protector should have referred the report to Parliament for the Speaker to decide whether he appoints a special committee to look into it or not.
“But we know that the ANC will continue to be intransigent as they did before the release of the report.
“They will want the report not to be released so we are back to square one,” said Holomisa.
But he said he is not worried because the public will eventually know the truth.
IFP Chief Whip Koos van der Merwe said it was in the public interest to make the report available.
“What could be behind this is a decision by the ANC in dealing with the report. This is their way of dealing with the report behind closed doors,” said Van der Merwe.
“It is unacceptable to spend so much in an individual’s private home, it is absolute nonsense.”
“The state could have built 3 000 RDP houses with that money. How dare he pump money into his private home?” asked Van der Merwe.
He said senior cabinet colleagues should be held accountable for the Nkandla saga.
Asked for her message to South Africans who’ve been agitating for the release of the report, Madonsela said: “When the report comes out read it carefully, find time to think about it. And if we refer to certain laws, go on the internet and check them out, so that will have an informed debate on this mater around our laws. And where we don’t like our laws, then we can say, please change these laws.”
“That is fundamentally unacceptable to the people of South Africa who’ve expressed that outrage for over a year now. So, whatever the legal parameters may be – if they’re too lenient then they have to change.
“When he leaves office after the mandatory two terms, if he gets a second term, he’ll still have a house worth over R300 million, courtesy of the taxpayer. He’ll be able to sell that house if he decided to.
“So it’s frustrating that there’s an office to hide, not by public protector, to try and justify this expenditure by using every trick in the book; apartheid legislation – it’s a national keypoint; it’s in the presidential handbook, it’s a prestige project, it’s allowed, it’s fine.
“All of these are tactics which the government tried when ministers overspent on luxury cars. It’s irrelevant.
“The point is that it’s unacceptable to the public, who are the bosses of the president. He’s not their king, he’s not doing them a favour by being in office. And if members of the public are outraged and angry, the right thing to do is to say ‘enough, we’re putting a stop to this project, we’re conducting an investigation’,” she said.
Mazibuko said the Department of Public Works was constitutionally duty-bound to report to Parliament on its work, instead of hiding behind apartheid-era legislation and trying to classify reports. “In a fair and just system Nxesi would have tabled that report to his own portfolio committee in Parliament, the MPS who hold him accountable for his actions.
“They would have scrutinised the report and they would have made recommendations or called for an inquiry. The fact that we have to go to court for something that should be in the public sphere is unacceptable. We’ve been forced into a corner.”
Asked for her message to South Africans who’ve been agitating for the release of the report, Madonsela said: “When the report comes out read it carefully, find time to think about it. And if we refer to certain laws, go on the internet and check them out, so that will have an informed debate on this mater around our laws. And where we don’t like our laws, then we can say, please change these laws.” – Additional reporting by Amanda Khoza for the Sunday Independent