Presidency – President Jacob Zuma has been consistent in his efforts to settle the matter regarding the Public Protector's March 2014 report on Nkandla titled "Secure in Comfort".
“The President has always sought to implement the mechanism which would determine whether there’s an amount that he ought to pay in respect of the security features that have been implemented at his residence.
“He has endeavoured to engage with the Minister of Police, he has allowed the Parliamentary process to take its course, all of which so he doesn’t sit in judgement over what is in essence his own case,” the Presidency said on Thursday.
President Zuma 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.
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.
The Presidency has noted that there has been no adverse finding made by the Public Protector that renders the President culpable on any matter.
According to the Presidency, the proposal which sits before the Constitutional Court at the moment is an endeavour to bring about a mechanism, using a Chapter 9 institution like the Auditor General which would aid and assist if the court deems it necessary in determining what the audited expenditure was and what the audited contribution then would be that the President ought to pay.
“This has been a consistent approach the President has adopted both when he complied with the Public Protector’s directive that he must report within 14 days to Parliament, he set out in Parliament that he would compose the mechanism to determine those issues.
“Likewise in filing his papers before the Constitutional Court in November of last year, 2015, he alluded to the fact that he has not at any stage failed to comply with the Public Protector’s report,” the Presidency said.
Furthermore, President Zuma has always said that he would abide by the process both in answering questions in Parliament, coupled with his address.
“Equally the President by proclamation through the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), has ensured that the investigations will proceed as a consequence of that the civil claims have been brought against those parties who in the judgement of the SIU are culpable for payments that need to be made to the State,” the Presidency said.
Additionally, there has been a number of departmental inquiries that have ensued where the conduct of officials have been examined also flowing from the Public Protector’s report.
All of this was contained in the report which the President had submitted in accordance with the Public Protector’s wish to the Parliament and these are the on-going measures.
“So this intervention which the President seeks to make in the Constitutional Court is consistent with the approach that he has displayed and it’s an effort to bring about accountability and responsibility on the part of the Executive in respect of its conduct,” the Presidency said.
President Zuma filed with the Constitutional Court the correspondence which sets out his proposal for resolution of the matter that comes before the court on 9 February. –SAnews.gov.za
