Cape Town - The ANC has given the clearest indication yet that President Jacob Zuma will not be asked to pay back any money for the Nkandla upgrades, dismissing the notion that Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s findings are binding as “absurd”.
The party said all reports on the upgrades must be treated equally.
It also took a swipe at opposition parties for their “despicable” conduct when they staged a walkout.
The party said it was not bothered by the opposition walkout because it was in the majority and not in a “government of national unity”.
Addressing the meeting in siSwati, ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakude said “the money they say was used irregularly was not used by the president”.
“The president didn’t build his house with state funds. The public protector says clearly that the president didn’t mislead Parliament and that he and his family built their own houses. All reports agree with that,” said Dlakude.
She said this was not the first time a president’s private home had been upgraded.
“It happened to previous presidents. The president didn’t steal taxpayers’ money in building his house. It was people who didn’t do their work, the accounting officers,” said Dlakude.
She also placed the blame on officials and on former public works minister Geoff Doidge without mentioning him by name.
Commenting on the opposition walkout, Dlakude told The Mercury the ANC members were “very comfortable” deliberating on the matter alone.
“As the ANC we are a majority. We won the elections. So we are not in a government of national unity,” said Dlakude.
Mmamoloko Kubayi (ANC) said the reports on Nkandla were common in that they all stated that Zuma had not asked for the upgrades.
“What is also common in the reports… is that the president had not requested all this. The second thing is that the president did not steal state money as per the reports,” said Kubayi.
ANC MP Mathole Motshekga said one should be “upfront” and say “the president has not violated any code of conduct because the report itself hasn’t said so”.
“The (public protector) finding says the conduct of president may have been unethical. Now what is the meaning of that?” said Motshekga.
At the beginning of the meeting Motshekga said there was a matter that had to be laid to rest.
“This is a matter that was discussed at great length raised by the honourable (DA leader Mmusi) Maimane who maintained that the public protector’s report contains remedial actions that must be followed because they are not merely recommendations.
“I want to indicate that those that saw Judge for Yourself (on eNCA) will have heard (Thuli Madonsela) herself concede that her findings were not binding, they were recommendations.”
Chapter nine institutions “cannot have overriding powers over all three arms of the state that are mandated to strengthen and support” democracy.
“Such a situation would be absurd. I do not believe the intention of the constitution and the Public Protector Act is to create a serial relationship between the public protector on one side and the executive and Parliament on the other side. I do not believe the constitution and the Public Protector Act envisaged such absurdity,” he said.
EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said the committee was no longer parliamentary “but a mere study group of the ANC”.
“This is because there is no sanity in insisting that this committee is of a democratic institution of a Parliament that defines itself as a multiparty system,” said Ndlozi.
Maimane said that with only the ANC members sitting, the committee was nothing more than a means to “whitewash the accountability of President Jacob Zuma”.
The committee would reconvene on October 9.
- Political Bureau
No comments:
Post a Comment