Johannesburg - The criticism from the SA National Editor’s Forum (Sanef) against Parliament for the inability to grant media permission to accompany the ad-hoc committee members to President Jacob Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla was unfair, the office of the African National Congress chief whip said on Wednesday.
“The Office of the ANC Chief Whip is disappointed by the unfortunate allegations levelled against Parliament by Sanef regarding the institution’s inability to grant journalists permission to accompany the ad hoc committee members to the President’s private residence in Nkandla,” spokesman Moloto Mothapo said in a statement.
“The allegations are without basis, ill-informed and reflects a misunderstanding of the basic functioning of parliament and the scope of its powers granted to it by the Constitution.”
He said the Constitution was instructive that Parliament must conduct its business in a manner that is open, transparent, accountable and thus must open its work to the public, including the media.
Mothapo said Parliament had adhered to the Constitutional principle strictly and without fail, other than few instances where the law and the Constitution would direct it otherwise.
On Tuesday, Sanef wrote a letter to chairman of the Parliamentary ad-hoc committee dealing with Nkandla, Cedric Frolick. In the letter, the media freedom committee said that Sanef was told the committee did not have the “legal authority to allow the media to enter the president’s private residence”.
“However, it is also apparent that the committee and its chairman have not taken any action to facilitate access of the media to the residence during the committee’s visit,” Sanef’s letter read.
“The media represented by Sanef are deeply shocked at the refusal and what appears to be the total lack of action by the committee to overcome the perceived obstacles to it facilitating access to the media on this occasion. Sanef believes strongly that the committee has a duty to ensure that the media gains access to the residence to enable it observe all the committee’s activities and any formal or informal and impromptu discussions conducted by the committee and its members during the visit.”
Sanef said the issues surrounding the “Nkandla matter” have raised “enormous public interest” over a period and the public had the right to know how matters relating to the controversy were being dealt with.
“Exclusion of the media from the visit to the residence could result in vital information concerning the issues being withheld from the public. Sanef believes it is not reasonable and justifiable for the media to be excluded,” Sanef said.
Sanef called on Frolick and the committee to request the president in the “strongest terms” for permission for the media to enter the residence with the committee.
However, on Wednesday, Mothapo said that the powers and functions of the speaker, to whom Media24 made the request for media access, were restricted to Parliament and were not extended to Zuma’s residence.
“This simply means while she has the power over ensuring public access to parliamentary sittings within and outside the seat of Parliament in Cape Town, as she has done regarding the ad-hoc committee meetings currently taking place at the KZN Legislature in Pietermaritzburg, it is beyond her powers to decide who should access the private family home of the President. Such authority resides elsewhere and definitely not with the Speaker or the chairperson of the ad-hoc committee,” he said.
“Sanef’s expectation that Parliament should have the authority over who accesses the President’s home and its subsequent criticism of the institution for its inability to do so is without foundation and unfair. The ANC would be the first to speak out against any undue interference with or limitations on media’s right to media freedom. However, we believe that Media24 did itself a disservice by directing its request to the inappropriate authority.”
Mothapo said they were pleased that the presidency had undertaken to give the media access to public areas around the homstead.
The committee is on a two-day fact-finding mission that will see them visiting Zuma’s private homestead.
In May, Police Minister Nathi Nhleko released a report that found - in direct contradiction to the earlier report of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela - that all features added to the homestead served a security purpose and that the president therefore did not have to repay the State for any part of the R246 million project.
This included a swimming pool, which the minister’s report described as doubling up as an essential fire pool.
Madonsela had found that Zuma benefited unduly from the project and directed that he reimburse the state for luxuries added to the property.
ANA