Publications
Partners
The Democratic Alliance has rejected President Jacob Zuma’s offer for an independent determination of what he should repay for the non-security upgrades at his private home in Nkandla.
DA leader Mmusi Maimane told journalists this morning that after taking legal advice, his party has decided to proceed with presenting its heads of argument before the Constitutional Court scheduled for next Tuesday.
“In so doing we will be seeking the relief outlined in our notice of motion,” he said.
Maimane said it was important to note that even in its notice of motion the DA made an argument that, in her report, the Public Protector not only made a determination around costs, but also made a determination that Zuma should reprimand the ministers that were involved in the matter.
“And we can’t simply dismiss that as if that now suddenly does not exist,” he said.
Maimane said the Nkandla matter was not just a question of paying back the money and a question of corruption, but it was also a question of saying “those who are involved must be dealt with adequately so”.
Zuma – through a presidency statement sent out late last night – proposed that a determination of the amount he is to pay should be independently and impartially determined.
The president suggested that, given the objection by one of the parties to the involvement of the police, 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.
But Maimane charged that the contents of Zuma’s settlement offer do not comply with the remedial actions as ordered by the Public Protector in her report entitled “Secure in Comfort”.
“In fact, we contend that the president designating the Auditor-General to come to a determination as to how much he is liable is the latest attempt to establish a parallel process, for a fifth time,” said Maimane.
“Specifically, the DA will argue that President Zuma’s failure to engage rationally with the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action pertaining to him was manifestly irrational, illegal and unconstitutional.
“We furthermore contend that the president’s decision to substitute the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector with a determination by the police minister, SIU or Parliament on whether he was liable for any of the costs was illegal and unconstitutional,” Maimane added.
He said it was important to note that the letter in which Zuma makes the proposal of an independent determination was not addressed to the litigants, but to the court.
“So the president is not seeking for us to be able to settle the matter, so we believe that we must proceed because we have gone to the court to ask for a particular order,” he said.
Maimane said he thought that Zuma became “very aware” of the potential that a court could find against him and that he would then face not only the embarrassment of the state of the nation address but the embarrassment of a court action that would instruct him to obey his oath of office.
Chairperson of the DA’s Federal Executive, James Selfe, who is the DA’s point man on legal matters, described the manner in which Zuma was litigating [on the matter] as “extraordinary”.
“Ordinarily, if you come with a settlement offer, that could be made by way of affidavit that would be deposed by a person. It would be accompanied by heads of argument and those would be then laid before the court in an ordinary way.
“Instead of which, we got a letter addressed to the Registrar of the Constitutional Court and copied to the litigants; that in my view is quite extraordinary.”
Selfe said they have written back to the Registrar of the Constitutional Court to say it was their intention to proceed on Tuesday.
