Constitutional Court refuses to give directions regarding Zuma repayment proposal
THE Constitutional Court has told President Jacob Zuma that a settlement offer was something that should determined by the parties to a case, as it refused to issue directions from the court on Mr Zuma’s repayment proposal.
In a letter sent on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court responded to the surprise proposal on Tuesday by Mr Zuma’s attorney, indicating that the President was willing to pay a portion of the cost of the nonsecurity-related upgrades at his Nkandla residence.
This was the recommendation of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela in her Secure In Comfort Report into the costs of the Nkandla upgrades. However, whether Mr Zuma should implement her directive has been the subject of prolonged heated debate in Parliament.
It was ultimately taken to the Constitutional Court in two separate cases by opposition parties the Economic Freedom Fighters and the Democratic Alliance.
On Monday the state attorney wrote to the highest court, setting out "the basis upon which the President’s representatives will address the court".
In it, the state attorney said "the need for finality is apparent".
The letter says the president "has proposed" that he would pay a sum determined by the auditor general and a treasury official — as opposed to Ms Madonsela’s directive that this be worked out by the police and treasury.
Attached to the letter is a draft order that the president proposes be made "an order by agreement".
In terms of the draft order, the auditor-general and a Treasury official will determine the reasonable cost of the of the nonsecurity upgrades at Nkandla and then determine what a "reasonable percentage" of those costs would be, which ought to be paid by the president.
They would report back to the court on the outcome of the determination within 90 days. And then the president would pay the sum they had determined.
The letter asks for directions from the court — "regarding the future conduct of the matter".
But the Constitutional Court — through its registrar’s office — said the settlement proposal was a matter for the parties to decide.
It "calls for no directions from the court at this stage".
The court also asked that the parties inform it by 4pm on Friday whether any agreement had been reached.
President Jacob Zuma. Picture: GCIS
THE Constitutional Court has told President Jacob Zuma that a settlement offer was something that should determined by the parties to a case, as it refused to issue directions from the court on Mr Zuma’s repayment proposal.
In a letter sent on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court responded to the surprise proposal on Tuesday by Mr Zuma’s attorney, indicating that the President was willing to pay a portion of the cost of the nonsecurity-related upgrades at his Nkandla residence.
This was the recommendation of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela in her Secure In Comfort Report into the costs of the Nkandla upgrades. However, whether Mr Zuma should implement her directive has been the subject of prolonged heated debate in Parliament.
It was ultimately taken to the Constitutional Court in two separate cases by opposition parties the Economic Freedom Fighters and the Democratic Alliance.
On Monday the state attorney wrote to the highest court, setting out "the basis upon which the President’s representatives will address the court".
In it, the state attorney said "the need for finality is apparent".
The letter says the president "has proposed" that he would pay a sum determined by the auditor general and a treasury official — as opposed to Ms Madonsela’s directive that this be worked out by the police and treasury.
Attached to the letter is a draft order that the president proposes be made "an order by agreement".
In terms of the draft order, the auditor-general and a Treasury official will determine the reasonable cost of the of the nonsecurity upgrades at Nkandla and then determine what a "reasonable percentage" of those costs would be, which ought to be paid by the president.
They would report back to the court on the outcome of the determination within 90 days. And then the president would pay the sum they had determined.
The letter asks for directions from the court — "regarding the future conduct of the matter".
But the Constitutional Court — through its registrar’s office — said the settlement proposal was a matter for the parties to decide.
It "calls for no directions from the court at this stage".
The court also asked that the parties inform it by 4pm on Friday whether any agreement had been reached.
Change: 2.60%
Change: 2.92%
Change: 4.80%
Change: 2.21%
Change: 2.84%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 2.60%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.06%
Change: -0.03%
Change: 0.11%
Change: -0.15%
Change: 0.00%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Data supplied by Profile Data