Cape Town - The Economic Freedom Fighters plan to take President Jacob Zuma and his ministers of police and public works to court over the report that seeks to absolve him from reimbursing the state for improvements to his private Nkandla home.
The party said it would do so on the basis that the report by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko seeks to overturn the directives of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela that Zuma pay back funds spent on luxuries like a swimming pool added to the rural homestead during a security upgrade that swelled to a R246 million project.
The 50-page document released last Thursday concluded that the pool, as well as a kraal, amphitheatre and visitors’ centre were all essential for the president’s security.
“After reading the report recently issued by Minister Nathi Nhleko and having sought legal advice, the EFF wishes to announce its decision to bring a legal challenge against the actions of the Ministers Nathi Nhleko, Thulas Nxesi, President Jacob Zuma and the South African Cabinet in collectively and deliberately breaching the Constitution in many respects,” EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said.
“These parties have conspired to review, contradict and reverse the findings of the Public Protector which is an independent Chapter 9 institution.”
He added that only a court could set aside findings by the Public Protector - a view also expressed by Madonsela as she reacted with dismay to Nhleko’s report.
“This cannot be done via a press conference as members of the executive did last Thursday,” Ndlozi added.
Meanwhile the DA is also considering legal action.
The party has sent a letter to Speaker Baleka Mbete saying Nhleko’s Nkandla report was irrational, biased and inaccurate.
DA federal executive chairman James Selfe on Sunday confirmed the letter had been sent following legal advice.
The letter states Nhleko’s report “is unconstitutional and invalid, for want of rationality, the factual basis of the report is incorrect and the report is biased in the sense that a member of cabinet may not recommend or seek to substitute his own conclusions for a determination made by the public protector, where her judgement has been bona fide expressed and where she has honestly and duly applied herself to a question which is within her power to determine”.
The letter, copied to Nhleko via e-mail, also requests copies of the source documents on which Nhleko made his determination and if these documents are denied, reasons for the refusal of access.
The National Assembly is expected to establish an ad hoc committee on Tuesday to consider Nhleko’s decision that no repayment from Zuma was due because the swimming pool, cattle kraal, chicken run, amphitheatre and visitors’ centre were necessary security features.
After the first parliamentary Nkandla ad hoc committee decided just before the May elections last year that the new incoming MPs should be left to deal with the matter, in November the ANC used its numbers in the House to adopt a previous ad hoc committee report clearing Zuma of wrongdoing.
The committee of only ANC MPs – the opposition walked out in protest – considered the reports from the public protector, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Parliament’s joint standing committee on intelligence (JSCI) and the inter-ministerial task team report.
The SIU, which relies on a presidential proclamation, was limited in its scope to “investigate the validity of the processes used to engage the consultants and contractors”. It has instituted a R155 million civil claim against Nkandla ar-chitect, Minenhle Makhanya.
The JSCI relied largely on the inter-ministerial task team report, aside from a site visit by the MPs who, as a rule, sit behind closed doors. The inter-ministerial task team report squarely blamed officials.
All reports agreed on serious violations of procurement policies and government prescripts.
However, the public protector also found Zuma and his family had unduly benefited from these structures, described as non-security comforts, and thus should repay at least some of the costs.
Repayment was not optional and the only issue to be determined was how much.
Zuma tasked Nhleko to determine whether any money should be repaid and if so, how much. That report was released on Thursday.
At the weekend, Madonsela said Nhleko’s report contained “mis-statements, inaccuracies, incomplete information, innuendos and false accusations”, adding that she would write to the president to point that out.
Madonsela was also quoted in the City Press and Sunday Times as saying she had been “too soft” – instead of saying the president had unduly benefited, the report should have stated he had benefited improperly and illegally, as per the Executive Ethics Act.
Following Nhleko’s announcement, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said he was embarrassed and angry because South Africa was being humiliated by the report.
Expelled Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi said Nhleko’s report was “a kick in the mouth” for the public protector because it “seeks to deliberately and completely ignore these remedial actions and at times even misrepresents the findings in order to absolve the president and the entire cabinet from taking political responsibility”.
While bureaucrats may be part of the problem, they could not be made the scapegoats, said Vavi, calling for a national march to the Union Buildings to protect the Office of the Public Protector, the constitution and democracy.
Cosatu said it would “study the report and identify all the lessons to be drawn on issues of state procurement and provisions of services”.
Political Bureau and ANA