Public Protector's Report on Nkandla

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,433
Reaction score
9,950
Location
District 9
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela will on Wednesday release her final report on Nkandla, amid criticism of her work.

The report's release date was expected to be around February 9, a few days before President Jacob Zuma's state-of-the-nation address, but Madonsela extended the deadline for responses at the request of one of the parties.

Affected parties were initially given deadlines of January 24 and 28, to respond to Madonsela's preliminary report on the over R206 million upgrades to Zuma's private Nkandla homestead in KwaZulu-Natal.

Madonsela has been criticised by the African National Congress for her handling of the probe.

With only a few months to go until the general election, ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe said the release of the report close to May 7 would indicate an intention to "muddy the waters in the election campaign".

Madonsela has previously dismissed claims that her office would time the release of her final report with the aim of influencing the elections.

On Sunday, Mantashe said the party did not have any expectations from the Nkandla report.

He called it a "political report", saying the ANC would treat it that way.

The ANC expected most of the information in the report to be the same as the provisional report.

"There might be findings in the report that might be sensational, but we expect the same information from what has been said."

Another ANC leader, Public Service and Administration Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, reportedly said she was sceptical about whether enough time was spent on the public protector's final report.

Nkandla has been at the centre of controversy after it emerged that the public works department had approved upgrades to the homestead costing R206m.

When questions were raised about these upgrades, a task team from the public works department was set up. It later found irregularities in the procurement process for the upgrade.

The Mail&Guardian reported that Madonsela had found in the preliminary report that Zuma had misled Parliament and benefited substantially from the upgrade.

An inter-ministerial task team report on the Nkandla expenditure was released in December, after it was declassified, confirming that a total of R206,420,644 was spent on the upgrade.

Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, who initially classified the report, said at its release that allegations that Zuma had used state resources to build and upgrade the residence were unfounded.

During an interview with Zuma in February, news channel eNCA asked him if he would abide by Madonsela's findings and recommendations once the final report was released.

Zuma said yes, as long as it was accurate.

"If they are accurate we will abide. But if they are not accurate that's a different matter," he told eNCA.

"Certainly once it comes we will follow what we do to other [public protector] reports."

Zuma disputed that more than R206m had been spent, saying the security upgrades cost around R50m.

"I think there's a very specific figure on the upgrades. I think it's about R50 million or something, or 50 plus or 70."

Zuma also told the news channel that he would not resign.

Despite ANC leaders outspoken criticism of Madonsela, the party's integrity committee could reportedly investigate Zuma should he be found to have benefited from the upgrades.

The ANC's integrity committee chairman Andrew Mlangeni told the Mail&Guardian that the public protector was not a court of law, she was appointed by government and could investigate anybody.

"We also have that authority. We can summon the president or the secretary general of the ANC. We can't act on the basis of Madonsela's investigation. We have to investigate [Zuma] ourselves. If she finds him guilty, we will make our own investigation," Mlangeni was quoted as saying.


Source : Sapa /gq/jk/rod
Date : 18 Mar 2014 15:22
 
Dear Gary,

Do you think we could have a Sticky for the PP's Report on Nkandla?

I anticipate a reasonable amount of media and discussion on this starting this afternoon.

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh and umm... Gary, can you kindly read all of it and then post like a highlights version for us lazy folk? Thanks!



:p
 
In all honesty, even if the report shows irregularities etc. Even if the president is removed from power, the core of the problem still remains, corrupt high-ranking officials who allowed and facilitated this madness.

If the ANC nominates a new presidential candidate, the only thing that will happen is that they will have to build Nkandla 2.0 for the new guy, with a "fire-pool" of coarse.
 
In all honesty, even if the report shows irregularities etc. Even if the president is removed from power, the core of the problem still remains, corrupt high-ranking officials who allowed and facilitated this madness.

If the ANC nominates a new presidential candidate, the only thing that will happen is that they will have to build Nkandla 2.0 for the new guy, with a "fire-pool" of coarse.

Yes, you have valid points, but I'm a truth seeker and an honest response will provide me with a smile, when a citizen already know the answers and are “proved wrong” by the government ignorance... you know, the whole world is watching.
 
Yes, you have valid points, but I'm a truth seeker and an honest response will provide me with a smile, when a citizen already know the answers and are “proved wrong” by the government ignorance... you know, the whole world is watching.

For Sure, but with the way things are going all over the world, its actually quite depressing. The whole world is watching the Ukraine, that didn't stop the Russians from "Invading", similar "atrocities" are happening all over the place but we have become so desensitised to lawlessness that even a damning report showing a photo of Zum-Zum physically withdrawing R200Mill from an ATM for his Holiday Home from the PP will blow over quicker than the World Cup in 2010 or the Pikoko Ganrty Rates I drive under every day..
 
Conspiracy theory time:

If the report contains adverse findings against Zuma the ANC recall him to demonstrate their commitment to fighting corruption...

The report reveals an underground facility housing strategic military equipment, Nkandla is just a decoy. The fire-pool is used as a coolant for the Nuclear Reactor used to power the facility. Thus the confidentiality.
 
Public Protector Report: Who’s got the power?

The Public Protector is about to release the long-awaited report investigating the alleged “security upgrades” at President Jacob Zuma’s private homestead near Nkandla as well as whether the president was truthful when he claimed to the National Assembly that he and his family had paid for all non-security related upgrades of his home. But what are the powers of the Public Protector and why was the institution created in the first place?

In law there is a long-standing principle that no person can be a judge in his or her own cause (in Latin it sounds even sexier: nemo iudex in sua causa). Underlying this principle is the assumption that a person will not be able to make an impartial finding about a specific matter (or will not be perceived by others of being capable of making an impartial finding) if he or she has a direct interest in the outcome of that matter.

This means that when a large company is alleged to have acted improperly by, say, bribing a foreign government in order to receive a tender, an investigation by employees of the accused company will have little credibility. Neither will it be appropriate for a family member of Oscar Pistorius to sit as the trial judge in his murder case as an acquittal of the accused will carry little or no credibility due to the (real or perceived) lack of impartiality of the presiding judge. Only an impartial person or body with no direct interest in the outcome of the matter will be able to reach a credible finding on such matters.

Similarly, when allegations are made that the government misused funds to enrich the head of the government or that the head of the government misled Parliament when he or she denied that he or she was personally enriched by the misuse of government funds, an investigation by members of the government will not be credible as those government Ministers or officials are in effect employees of the president and therefore will have a direct interest in the outcome of the investigation.

This is why a report by the security cluster into the Nkandla “security upgrades” will – in legal terms – have far less credibility than any report prepared by an independent institution such as the Public Protector.

If there are any discrepancies between the government report and the report of the Public Protector, it would be difficult to argue that the former should be believed above the latter, given that individuals prepared the former with a direct interest in the outcome of their own investigation.

It is partly because of such difficulties with the credibility of internal investigations that the South African Constitution created the office of the Public Protector. Because any investigation by state officials or government Ministers of maladministration or misuse of funds by fellow officials, Ministers or the president would be tainted because of the nemo iudex in sua causa principle, the Constitution created an independent and impartial body to do credible investigations into such matters and – if breaches were to be found – to make recommendations for remedial action to be taken.

Section 181 of the Constitution reminds us that – as is the case with other Chapter 9 institutions – the Public Protector is independent and impartial and must exercise her powers and perform their functions without fear, favour or prejudice.

Other organs of state have a duty to assist and protect the Public Protector to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of these institutions. This section of the Constitution also prohibits any person or organ of state from interfering with the functioning of the Public Protector.

Section 9 of the Public Protector Act underscores the impartiality of the Public Protector and indicates that her status is similar to that of a High Court judge.

In terms of this section it is a criminal offence to insult the Public Protector or the Deputy Public Protector. It is also a criminal offence for any person to do anything in connection with an investigation, which, “if the said investigation had been proceedings in a court of law, would have constituted contempt of court”.

Any person convicted of such an offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding R40,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

These sections do not prohibit anyone from criticising a specific finding of the Public Protector on sounds factual or legal grounds. Just as we may all criticise a court judgment on the grounds that we disagree with a judge’s interpretation of the facts or application of the legal principles, we are also entitled to criticise a Public Protector report on such grounds.

To use a purely imaginary example, challenging a finding of the Public Protector that a pool constructed at the President’s private home was indeed a swimming pool and not a fire fighting feature (on the basis that several buckets have been placed next to the pool to dip into the water in case of fire) would be perfectly legitimate.

But where an individual politician or member of the public wishes to discredit a report by the Public Protector he or she may not question the impartiality or integrity of the Public Protector and may not allege that the Public Protector made a finding animated by political considerations, corruption or malice as this would constitute a criminal offence in breach of section 9 of the Public Protector Act.

The powers of the Public Protector are far-reaching. Section 182 of the Constitution empowers the Public Protector to investigate any conduct in state affairs, or in the public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice; to report on that conduct; and to take appropriate remedial action.

The Public Protector Act elaborates on this and makes clear that the Public Protector has wide powers to investigate conduct by organs of state, politicians and other public bodies. She also has wide powers to obtain a warrant to search premises and to seize documents needed for an investigation.

Section 7 of the Act states that the Public Protector may investigate corruption, improper or unlawful enrichment, maladministration in connection with the affairs of government at any level; abuse or unjustifiable exercise of power or unfair, capricious, discourteous or other improper conduct or undue delay by a person performing a public function; or improper or dishonest conduct.

In terms of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act of 1998 the Public Protector is also empowered to investigate breaches of the Executive Ethics Code passed in terms of the Act.

Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics state that Members of the Executive (which includes the president and any other member of the Cabinet) may not wilfully mislead the legislature to which they are accountable; act in a way that is inconsistent with their position; use their position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person; expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests; or receive remuneration for any work or service other than for the performance of their functions as members of the Executive.

Once the Public Protector has concluded an investigation she has to draft a report with her findings and any recommendations relating to those findings.

If the Public Protector is of the opinion that the facts disclose the commission of an offence by any person, she must bring the matter to the notice of the prosecuting authority.

She is also empowered to refer a report to the National Assembly if she deems it necessary; or she deems it in the public interest.

Of course, as far as possible breaches of the Executive Members Ethics Code by members of the Cabinet are concerned she is required to submit her report to the president for action.

As the Public Protector pointed out when she previously found President Zuma in breach of the Code, there is a lacuna in the Executive Members Ethics Act, as it does not provide for a situation where the president himself has been found in breach of the Code. Unfortunately this gap in the Act has not been corrected as requested by the Public Protector.

This means that in the event of the Public Protector finding that the president himself is in breach of the Code (and I am not making any assumptions in this regard), the Act requires him to receive and act on the report against himself. Given the absurdity of this situation I would assume that the Public Protector would be entitled in terms of the Public Protector Act to also submit this aspect of any report to the National Assembly for possible action against the president.

It is important to keep these general principles in mind when perusing the Public Protector’s report on the Nkandla security upgrade. Whatever the report may contain – and I have not seen the report and do not in any way wish to pre-empt any of its findings – those of us who comment on it may do well to keep in mind that when we comment, we are not allowed to insult the Public Protector or act in contempt of her office.

Pierre de Vos
This column appeared on Daily Maverick.
http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/19/OPINION-Public-Protector-Report-Whos-got-the-power
 
BREAKING: ESKOM hoping to generate up to 100MW by attaching a turbine to Mac Maharaj as he begins to spin the Nkandla report later today.
 
BREAKING: ESKOM hoping to generate up to 100MW by attaching a turbine to Mac Maharaj as he begins to spin the Nkandla report later today.

How will they harness this kind of energy? We cant use all of it at once, its like a few thousand lighting bolts..
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X