Pretoria - President Jacob Zuma has proposed an end to the drawn-out legal controversy regarding the Public Protector's March 2014 report on Nkandla, "Secure in Comfort".
He has suggested that the Constitutional Court should order Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and the Auditor General to determine how much he is liable to pay, as he believes that their determination will be independent and beyond political reproach.
“To achieve an end to the drawn-out dispute in a manner that meets the Public Protector’s recommendations and is beyond political reproach, the President proposes that the determination of the amount he is to pay should be independently and impartially determined.
“Given the objection by one of the parties to the involvement of SAPS, as the Public Protector herself had required, the Auditor General and Minister of Finance be requested by the court, through appropriate designees, to conduct the exercise directed by the Public Protector,” the Presidency said in a statement on Tuesday evening.
The proposal, according to the Presidency, was made in the letter directed on the President’s attorneys to the Registrar of the Constitutional Court.
The Court is due to hear the matter on 9 February 2016, after the applications by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Democratic Alliance (DA) to the court.
In her report titled “Secure in Comfort’, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela directed that President Zuma repay some of the public funds spent on non-security features installed at his rural homestead.
She said the amount should be decided by National Treasury and the SAPS.
But a report by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko cleared the President which prompted the Economic Freedom Fighters and the Democratic Alliance to go to court to have President Zuma’s actions declared unconstitutional.
Despite the proposal, President Zuma made it clear he remains critical of factual aspects and legal conclusions in the Public Protector's report.
The report identified irregularities that occurred in the course of upgrades by the Department of Public Works, in liaison with other departments.
“How those irregularities happened continue to be investigated in separate inquiries relating to officials and professional consultants on the project,” said the Presidency.
It further pointed out that the report specifically found no wrongdoing of any kind by the President and found that he did not benefit from all but five features at his private homestead.
The five features are the visitors’ centre, amphitheatre, cattle kraal, chicken run and swimming pool.
“The actual amount that the President is required to pay was not determined by the Public Protector who limited herself to setting out this process for the amount to be determined,” said the Presidency.
President Zuma has maintained his willingness to contribute to any increase in value to his property, objectively determined, as required by the Public Protector.
“The President also supports the need for finality in the matter of the Public Protector’s report. However, he believes and contends in his affidavits filed in court that the DA and the EFF have misinterpreted and/or are manipulating the Public Protector’s report for the purposes of political expediency.”
According to the Presidency, the EFF and the DA and the Public Protector are yet to responded to the President’s proposal. - SAnews.gov.za
