To achieve an end to the dispute in a manner that meets the Public Protector’s recommendations and is beyond political reproach, the president proposed that the determination of the amount he is to pay should be independently and impartially determined.
This refers to the Nkandla scandal in which Zuma is accused of allowing the abuse of public funds worth 245 million rand (about 15 million U.S. dollars at current rate) in the security upgrades of his private home in Nkandal, KwaZulu-Natal Province.
Mandosela released a report in March 2014 into the final findings into the scandal.
Madonsela claims that Zuma’s family unduly benefited from the project and asks Zuma to pay part of the money on the project, a request rejected by Zuma.
The report identifies irregularities that occurred in the course of upgrades by the Department of Public Works, in liaison with other departments, to the traditional family home the president has had at Nkandla for many years.
How those irregularities happened continue to be investigated in separate inquiries relating to officials and professional consultants on the project.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) have applied directly to the Constitutional Court for orders declaring that the steps taken by the president to give effect to the Public Protector’s remedial action are unconstitutional.
The Public Protector is joined as an interested party to the applications. The president has opposed what the DA and EFF have joined in seeking.
The Court is due to hear the matter on February 9, 2016.
“While President Zuma remains critical of a number of factual aspects and legal conclusions in the report, he proposes a simple course to implement what the Public Protector recommended as remedial action contained in the report,” presidential spokesperson Bogani Majola said.
Zuma has maintained his willingness to contribute to any increase in value to his property, objectively determined, as required by the Public Protector.
Zuma notes that the Public Protector accepts that only five aspects of the project give rise to a need for any determination and that this determination still requires the proportion of the item and the reasonable cost to be established.
The president also supports the need for finality in the matter of the Public Protector’s report. However, he believes and contends in his affidavits filed in court that the DA and the EFF have misinterpreted and/or are manipulating the Public Protector’s report for the purposes of political expediency.
None of the EFF, the DA and the Public Protector have responded to the president’s proposal, which was made in his answering affidavit in November last year.
It will now be for the court to decide if the offer is an appropriate basis for an order when the applications are argued on February 9, 2016, Majola said. Enditem
Source: Xinhua
