Parliament - MPs will only process the ministerial report exonerating President Jacob Zuma from repaying public money spent on his Nkandla home next month, according to a programme adopted on Tuesday by the ad hoc committee handling the matter.
They will begin work on July 21 and the next day visit the president’s homestead to inspect the R246 million upgrade that has turned into one of the biggest controversies of his presidency.
On July 21, Police Minister Nathi Nhleko will brief the committee about the report he released last month, directly contradicting that of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela.
Madonsela found that Zuma had benefited unduly from the project and should pay a percentage of its cost to cover luxury features added to what should have been a security overhaul.
Corne Mulder from the Freedom Front Plus noted when the committee engaged with Madonsela’s report last year, the ANC ignored calls by the opposition to allow her to brief MPs. Yet it was now allowing Nhleko to do so.
“Maybe they are more happy now, with this report,” he said.
Democratic Alliance MP James Selfe said the DA had no objections to the programme per se but had serious concerns about the status of the police minister’s report as it sought to substitute that of the Public Protector, and in law this was not allowed.
This point has been made by Madonsela herself, who said after Nhleko released his report, that she had directed that he should determine with the help of National Treasury how much, and not whether Zuma owed anything.
All opposition parties associated themselves with Selfe’s submission, which was handed out in writing to committee members.
But ANC veteran Mathole Motshekga objected, saying the issue could be debated later but making the point now posed the risk that “we will confuse the public”.
Committee chairman Cedric Frolick dismissed this and allowed the document to be distributed.
Opposition parties boycotted the last ad hoc committee on Nkandla in protest at the ANC’s refusal to accept that the findings of the Public Protector were binding on the State, and therefore on Zuma too.
They are likely to do so again if they find themselves in the same stalemate with the ANC, and have taken legal advice on challenging Nhleko’s findings in court.
ANA