Nkandla: The Constitutional Court Judgement

N

ngwe23

Executive Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
5,237
Reaction score
17
Location
JHB
So, today is the day that the highest court in the land will finally pronounce on the matter. Without preempting the judgement, I think we all have an idea which way the judgement will lean. What is of participial interest for me is how the courts will handle the failure of National Assembly to perform its duties.

Those that are hoping for impeachment will be disappointed, unfortunately. Because of the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ConCourt's powers do not reach that far.
 
Nkandla judgment day

Johannesburg – A little more than a month after the Constitutional Court heard arguments in the EFF and DA's application for an order that President Jacob Zuma repay some of the R246 million spent on his Nkandla home, the court is ready to hand down judgment.

Thursday’s judgment is expected to have a number of facets to it.

The EFF and the DA wanted Zuma to pay back a portion of the money spent on non-security upgrades to his homestead.

A few days before the hearing in February, Zuma sent a letter to the court's registrar to suggest that it order the Auditor General and finance minister to determine how much he should repay for non-security features at Nkandla.

The Constitutional Court was expected to make a final order on this.

The opposition parties wanted the court to rule on whether Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's remedial action, set out in her March 2014 report, Secure in Comfort, was binding.

Ambit of Public Protector's powers

During the hearing on February 9, Madonsela's lawyer argued about the nature and ambit of her powers and the legal effect of her remedial action.

Madonsela stood by the remedial action set out in her report. But she agreed it was no longer appropriate for the police to help determine the reasonable costs of non-security features.

Jeremy Gauntlett, for Zuma, argued that the Nkandla saga had "traumatised the nation”, which was why he had made his proposal regarding the Auditor General and the Treasury.

He claimed the Public Protector Act was a "statutory curiosity" because it did not elaborate what had to be done regarding remedial action.

Zuma accepted that Madonsela wanted certain things done, but differed on how these had to be done, he added.

Parliament took 'wrong position'

Gauntlett put the blame for the fiasco squarely on the shoulders of the Department of Public Works and said Police Minister Nathi Nhleko's report meant nothing. Nhleko, in his report, found all the features built at Nkandla were security-related and Zuma was thus not liable to pay for any of them.

The EFF wanted the Constitutional Court to find that Zuma breached his oath of office and constitutional duties by ignoring the Public Protector’s remedial action.

Gauntlett argued it was a "dangerous year" and warned that if the Constitutional Court ruled that Zuma did breach his oath of office, opposition parties could use it to have him impeached.

Wim Trengove, for the EFF, said the National Assembly violated its constitutional obligations by not holding the president and Cabinet to account.

The judges asked Speaker Baleka Mbete's lawyer, Lindi Nkosi-Thomas, if the National Assembly had erred in its approach to Madonsela’s remedial action.

"Parliament took a wrong position," she conceded.

Genevieve Quintal, News24

Source: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/nkandla-judgment-day-20160331
 
ngwe23 said:
Those that are hoping for impeachment will be disappointed, unfortunately. Because of the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ConCourt's powers do not reach that far.
Click to expand...

Nobody expected that it was never up to the courts to initiate the impeachment or even call for it. That will be for the opposition parties to initiate, but as always, it's doomed to fail.
 
LazyLion said:
Nobody expected that it was never up to the courts to initiate the impeachment or even call for it. That will be for the opposition parties to initiate, but as always, it's doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

I'm more hoping that there's some kind of criminal sanction available and that charges will be presented in a lower court?
 
I think there will be one clear cut ruling, while the other will generate plenty of debate.

1. The ConCourt will clarify the role of the Public Prosecutor.

2. The rest is a mess.
 
What is of participial interest for me is how the courts will handle the failure of National Assembly to perform its duties.
Click to expand...

The most the courts can do is tell the NA to do their job properly.

That being said, once Zuma leaves office, the $hit could hit the fan badly for him.
 
EFF will be victorious in Constitutional Court – Malema

Pretoria – The EFF will be victorious in the Constitutional Court when judgment is handed down on Thursday, the party's leader, Julius Malema, said, speaking to the media after receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from Unisa.

“We are just spoilt with blessings. On Sunday we were at ZCC [Moria], today [Wednesday] we are at Unisa and tomorrow [Thursday] we are at the Constitutional Court to receive victory,” he told reporters outside the Unisa graduation hall on Wednesday.

“We receive victory because we don’t use gut feelings, we use thorough research and reading.”

The Constitutional Court will hand down judgment in Nkandla matter on Thursday. A letter from the senior registrar's clerk of the Constitutional Court has informed parties judgment will be handed down at 10:00 on March 31.

The matter relates to non-security upgrades – paid for the taxpayer – made to President Jacob Zuma's private home in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal. The EFF and DA took Zuma and Speaker Baleka Mbete to court after they failed to adhere to the remedial actions resulting from Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s investigation.

Confident of victory

They applied for an order clarifying the powers of the public protector, and that Zuma be ordered to pay back some of the money that was spent on non-security items such as the swimming pool, initially called a 'fire pool, a chicken run and a cattle kraal.

Malema said the EFF were confident of victory as they had presented tangible evidence to the court. “We make cogent arguments and we always present superior logic on any matter and that’s why it’s very rare we falter on the way. It’s a good week,” he said.

Malema added that he hoped after the Constitutional Court ruling the ANC the ANC would come to its sense and realise it had erred on the Nkandla matter. He also challenged the ANC's newly appointed chief whip in Parliament, Jackson Mthembu, to be a man of his word on the issue.

“After the ruling the ANC will have to come to its proper senses because you can’t say a president has broken an oath of office which means the protection of the constitution then say this person must continue to be the president of the country.

"Even when the Constitutional Court says he has no capacity to protect the constitution. Let’s hope Jackson Mthembu is not just talk. He says they handled Nkandla wrongly. History is a nice thing; it is now presenting an opportunity for the ANC to correct itself,” he said.

Karabo Ngoepe, News24

Source: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/N...rious-in-constitutional-court-malema-20160330
 
I wish though we had a Game of Throne's style punishment for oath breakers in this country.
 
ngwe23 said:
Those that are hoping for impeachment will be disappointed, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

"Those" being any citizen hoping for responsible governance and accountability? :)

JZ must be impeached AND thrown into jail AND all his ill-gotten gains must be nationalised - this must be a lesson to all future leaders of the country. Hopefully, a good lesson rather than you can skate as long as you have enough dirt on your friends.
 
MickeyD said:
I think there will be one clear cut ruling, while the other will generate plenty of debate.

1. The ConCourt will clarify the role of the Public Prosecutor.

2. The rest is a mess.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Courts in general, and specifically the ConCourt has always been very hesitant to get involved in political affairs. I don't see them emphatically bucking that trend.

That doesn't mean there can't be hard-hitting findings, though.
 
LazyLion said:
Nobody expected that it was never up to the courts to initiate the impeachment or even call for it. That will be for the opposition parties to initiate, but as always, it's doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

I wonder just how brazen a crime Zuma would have to commit before they actually impeached him? Trump bragged that he could kill someone in the street and his support wouldn't diminish, I sometimes wonder if Zuma could do the same and not have anyone in the ANC do anything about it...
 
I think if all the ministers could vote in secret, JZ would be out before the court started
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X