PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma’s legal adviser, Michael Hulley, on Thursday insisted that the President’s offer to now pay back some of the money spent on his home in Nkandla was consistent with his position all along, and that he had never failed to comply with the directives of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela.
This disputes Mr Zuma’s position in the National Assembly that there was no money that he had to repay, following a finding by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko that all the so-called nonsecurity upgrades at Nkandla were necessary to safeguard Mr Zuma and his family.
The African National Congress (ANC) in Parliament endorsed this view and approved a special ad hoc committee report which found that Mr Zuma should not have to repay any of the money spent on his home.
Mr Zuma and the ANC have also repeatedly insisted that Ms Madonsela’s remedial action orders were recommendations only, and were not binding.
Mr Hulley said Mr Zuma’s proposal to resolve the matter was "consistent with what had been contained in the President’s affidavit, wherein he sets out that he will adopt the findings of the public protector and in so far as there needs to be a mechanism which needs to be created to determine what is reasonable costs and consequently what would be a reasonable amount, if any, that the President ought then to pay. There has been no adverse finding made by the public protector that renders the President culpable on any matter".
Mr Hulley said that this was not a new approach and Mr Zuma, in answering questions in Parliament, had always said that he could abide by the process.
Mr Zuma’s lawyer said that he believed the "variance has been as to what that process must be and who would be engaged in that process. We’ve had various commentaries about the role that the minister of police has played and so on and so forth. The indubitable fact is that as the consequence of the public protector’s report, Cabinet has reviewed its policy and has adopted in accordance with the proposals that have been made by the public protector, new measures to ensure that there is public accountability for the expenses that are incurred in respect of the members of the executive".
He said the president had always sought to implement the mechanism, which would determine whether there was an amount that he ought to pay in respect of the security features installed at Nkandla.
However, questions have been raised about how attempts were made to introduce a parallel process with the police minister in determining what constituted security features, rather than accepting Ms Madonsela’s order.
"(Zuma) 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 judgment over what is in essence his own case," Mr Hulley said.
"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."
He also claimed that the presidential proclamations sent to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had ensured that civil claims had been brought against those parties who, in the judgment of the SIU, were responsible for payments needed to be made to the state.
"We have also seen various departmental inquiries that have ensued where the conduct of officials has been examined, also flowing from the public protector’s report. And as I said, all of this was contained in the report which the President had submitted in accordance with the public protector’s wish, to Parliament and these are the ongoing measures," Mr Hulley said.
"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," Mr Hulley concluded.
President Jacob Zuma's residence in Nkandla. Picture: SOWETAN/SUNDAY WORLD
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma’s legal adviser, Michael Hulley, on Thursday insisted that the President’s offer to now pay back some of the money spent on his home in Nkandla was consistent with his position all along, and that he had never failed to comply with the directives of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela.
This disputes Mr Zuma’s position in the National Assembly that there was no money that he had to repay, following a finding by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko that all the so-called nonsecurity upgrades at Nkandla were necessary to safeguard Mr Zuma and his family.
The African National Congress (ANC) in Parliament endorsed this view and approved a special ad hoc committee report which found that Mr Zuma should not have to repay any of the money spent on his home.
Mr Zuma and the ANC have also repeatedly insisted that Ms Madonsela’s remedial action orders were recommendations only, and were not binding.
Mr Hulley said Mr Zuma’s proposal to resolve the matter was "consistent with what had been contained in the President’s affidavit, wherein he sets out that he will adopt the findings of the public protector and in so far as there needs to be a mechanism which needs to be created to determine what is reasonable costs and consequently what would be a reasonable amount, if any, that the President ought then to pay. There has been no adverse finding made by the public protector that renders the President culpable on any matter".
Mr Hulley said that this was not a new approach and Mr Zuma, in answering questions in Parliament, had always said that he could abide by the process.
Mr Zuma’s lawyer said that he believed the "variance has been as to what that process must be and who would be engaged in that process. We’ve had various commentaries about the role that the minister of police has played and so on and so forth. The indubitable fact is that as the consequence of the public protector’s report, Cabinet has reviewed its policy and has adopted in accordance with the proposals that have been made by the public protector, new measures to ensure that there is public accountability for the expenses that are incurred in respect of the members of the executive".
He said the president had always sought to implement the mechanism, which would determine whether there was an amount that he ought to pay in respect of the security features installed at Nkandla.
However, questions have been raised about how attempts were made to introduce a parallel process with the police minister in determining what constituted security features, rather than accepting Ms Madonsela’s order.
"(Zuma) 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 judgment over what is in essence his own case," Mr Hulley said.
"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."
He also claimed that the presidential proclamations sent to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had ensured that civil claims had been brought against those parties who, in the judgment of the SIU, were responsible for payments needed to be made to the state.
"We have also seen various departmental inquiries that have ensued where the conduct of officials has been examined, also flowing from the public protector’s report. And as I said, all of this was contained in the report which the President had submitted in accordance with the public protector’s wish, to Parliament and these are the ongoing measures," Mr Hulley said.
"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," Mr Hulley concluded.
Change: -0.47%
Change: -0.57%
Change: -1.76%
Change: -0.34%
Change: 0.02%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -1.23%
Change: -0.37%
Change: -0.47%
Change: 0.00%
Change: -0.42%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 1.29%
Change: 1.53%
Change: 1.22%
Change: 1.10%
Change: 1.28%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.04%
Change: -0.52%
Change: 0.20%
Change: -1.38%
Change: -1.73%
Data supplied by Profile Data