Zuma to ‘pay back the money’
President Jacob Zuma responded to the issue of Nkandla in a recent statement issued by the Presidency.
Zuma has proposed an end to the drawn-out legal controversy regarding the public protector Thulisile Madonsela’s report on Nkandla, ‘Secure in Comfort’.
While Zuma remains critical of a number of factual aspects and legal conclusions in the report, he proposes a simple course of action to implement what the public protector recommended as remedial action for the entire Nkandla issue.
The court is due to hear the matter on Tuesday (February 9).
The report identified irregularities that occurred in the course of upgrades by the Department of Public Works, in liaison with other departments, to the traditional family home Zuma has had at Nkandla for many years.
How those irregularities happened, continue to be investigated in separate inquiries relating to officials and the professional consultants on the project.
The report specifically found no wrongdoing of any kind by the president.
It also found no benefit for which Zuma could be required to compensate the state in relation to nearly all aspects of the project.
But in relation to five features of the private homestead the report directed a further process to be carried out by National Treasury in conjunction with SAPS.
This is to determine a reasonable proportion for which Zuma should repay the state.
The actual amount that Zuma is required to pay was not determined by Madonsela, who limited herself to setting out this process for the amount to be determined.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) have applied directly to the Constitutional Court for orders declaring that the steps taken by Zuma to give effect to Madonsela’s remedial action, are unconstitutional.
Zuma has maintained his willingness to contribute to any increase in value to his property, objectively determined, as required by Madonsela.
He notes that she accepts that only five aspects of the project give rise to a need for any determination and that this determination still requires the proportion of the item and the reasonable cost to be established.
Zuma also supports the need for finality in the matter of Madonsela’s report.
However, he believes and contends in his affidavits filed in court that the DA and the EFF have misinterpreted and are manipulating the public protector’s report for the purposes of political expediency.
To achieve an end to the drawn-out dispute in a manner that meets Madonsela’s recommendations and is beyond political reproach, Zuma 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 Madonsela herself had required, the Auditor-General and minister of finance be requested by the court, to conduct the exercise directed by the public protector.
