Justice minister ducks question on Nkandla, Public Protector
Justice Minister Michael Masutha on Wednesday evaded questions on whether President Jacob Zuma would finally heed Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s directive that he repay state money spent on his Nkandla home.
“The matter is subject to a Constitutional Court challenge which is due to be heard in February next year,” Masutha said in response to a question from Democratic Alliance MP Glynnis Breytenbach in the National Assembly, adding that it was against parliamentary rule 67 to pronounce on matters that were sub judice.
Breytenbach had asked whether, in light of last month’s Supreme Court of Appeal judgement in the Motsoeneng case, Masutha would advise Zuma to obey Madonsela’s directive in her report on Nkandla, “Secure in Comfort”, that he reimburse the state for luxuries added to his private home.
She retorted that Masutha was predictably seeking “refuge” in the sub judice rule. In turn he reminded her that two parliamentary ad hoc committees had absolved Zuma of any responsibility for the project spiralling to a cost of more than R200 million.
Other opposition MPs rose to argue that the SCA had in its ruling on the case between the DA and the SABC over the appointment of Hlaudi Motsoeneng as chief operating officer despite a report by Madonsela finding irregularities on his watch while acting in the job, vindicated the opposition view that her office’s remedial action was binding on the state.
But Masutha confirmed that government considered the question of the powers of the Public Protector unresolved until the Constitutional Court addresses it in the case Economic Freedom Fighters brought over Nkandla scandal and added that it appeared the country’s courts were at loggerheads over the principle.
He added that the SCA had made its ruling in another matter and that to date no judge had ruled on Zuma’s obligations regarding Madonsela’s findings on Nkandla.
“There is no disregard of the court in this regard,” he said.
Masutha referred back to Judge Ashton Schippers’s initial judgment in the Motsoeneng case, which held that the Public Protector’s rulings were not binding in the absolute. This was criticised by the SCA, and Schippers himself had, in granting the appeal, said it was imperative that the higher court provide clarity on the question, which had become a burning political issue.
“It speaks for itself that the courts themselves are not on the same page on this matter,” Masutha said, before noting that the Constitutional Court would be the final arbiter.
“Exercise just a little bit of patience. It is only February next year … be patient, February is around the corner, go and enjoy Christmas.”
ANA
File photo: Gallo Images