Cape Town - It remains unclear how much President Jacob Zuma may have to pay back from the cost of upgrades to his Nkandla homestead after he accepted that a Department of Public Works internal “apportionment” document, which originally stated an amount of R10.65 million for his personal account, should be considered in the process.
In a statement proposing “an end to the drawn-out legal controversy” over Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on Nkandla, Zuma suggested late on Tuesday that the auditor-general and minister of finance be requested to determine the reasonable portion of the costs for him to repay of non-security upgrades at Nkandla.
The statement said Zuma had “maintained his willingness to contribute to any increase in the value of his property”, despite his long-held position that he would not pay as he had not requested the upgrades.
“It will now be for the court to decide if the offer is an appropriate basis for an order when the applications are argued,” the statement said.
But the DA was first out of the starting blocks in rejecting the offer on Wednesday, saying it was an attempt by Zuma to substitute his chosen process for that set out by Madonsela in her March 2014 report, Secure in Comfort.
Madonsela had instructed that Zuma “take steps with the assistance of the National Treasury and the police” to determine the reasonable costs of the non-security items and, having regard to the Public Works “apportionment document” which set out items for his account, repay a “reasonable percentage” of these.
But Zuma said in a letter to the registrar of the Constitutional Court that the DA had objected to the report on the matter by Minister of Police Nathi Nhleko, which exonerated him, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the police to be involved. He believed this would be recognised by the parties, including the public protector.
The DA did not accept this argument, however.
Zuma’s proposal for the finance minister and auditor-general to conduct the exercise was “the latest attempt to establish a parallel process”, DA leader Mmusi Maimane said.
This was a reference to a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in October which said organs of state could not try to substitute findings arrived at through a parallel process instituted by them for those of the public protector.
The DA would pursue the case to establish the extent of the public protector’s powers once and for all, Maimane said.
EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndlozi also said the ConCourt hearing should proceed as the case was about more than Nkandla.
Watch: EFF gets its way on #PayBackTheMoney
Madonsela welcomed Zuma’s “willingness to engage regarding compliance” with her remedial action, but said there were a number of issues flowing from his proposal which she and her legal team wished to consider.
She would respond to the ConCourt before commenting in public.
According to UCT constitutional law Professor Pierre de Vos, Zuma’s hope that the ConCourt would find his Nkandla settlement offer acceptable and make it an order of the court is mistaken.
The court could not “unilaterally impose an offer”, De Vos said on Wednesday, and could make it an order of the court only if the litigants in the case – the DA and EFF – accepted it.
That they had rejected the offer meant the hearing next Tuesday would have to proceed as set down.
Read: Zuma’s 3 u-turns under public pressure
De Vos said there was still a “slight” possibility that the ConCourt would decide not to grant direct access to the litigants and send them off to a lower court.
Zuma’s proposal came closer to Madonsela’s remedial action but did not dispense with the legal issue relating to the nature of her powers, De Vos said.
Zuma’s letter to the registrar also argues the reprimand of the relevant ministers ordered by Madonsela has fallen away as they no longer hold those positions.
However, Zuma accepts in the proposed draft order of the court, submitted with his letter, that the Public Works apportionment document referred to in Madonsela’s report, which initially allocated R10.65m for his account, should be taken into consideration.
Included among items for Zuma’s pocket were portions of general landscaping, lightning protection, the “fire pool” and parking and the visitor’s centre, among others.
The ANC said on Wednesday that it welcomed Zuma’s move, which would “bring closure” to the matter.
“Our support for the proposed solution does not imply that President Zuma is responsible for wrongdoing in the security upgrades at Nkandla,” it said.
Cosatu also welcomed the offer, saying it would go “a long way to assuring the nation that the president is prepared to listen and take political responsibility as a leader of the nation”.
Political Bureau