President Jacob Zuma’s suggestion that he has fulfilled the remedial actions as prescribed by the public protector on his Nkandla homestead is “bizarre”.
So believes official opposition Democratic Alliance, who on Friday said they would file an affidavit in the Constitutional Court to show that Zuma had not given effect to the remedial actions.
This after Zuma, in an affidavit filed in the Constitutional Court on Monday for the DA’s Nkandla lawsuit, said he had complied with the Public Protector’s report.
The case will be heard in February 2016, when the DA and the Economic Freedom Fighters will be fighting for Zuma to pay back a “reasonable percentage” of the money spent on the non-security upgrades at Nkandla.
Zuma, in his affidavit, said he had already implemented the remedial action as specified by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report, Secure in Comfort.
The DA, however, have rubbished the claims.
Zuma ‘treated Madonsela’s office with contempt’
Speaking at a press conference in Parliament on Friday, DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach, together with party leader “Mmusi Maimane, said Zuma had refused to engage the report”.
“… And instead offered excuses such as that he would give full and proper consideration to the matter upon receipt of the SIU Report. He has demonstrated he is not someone who believes he is bound to comply with the remedial action of the Public Protector.
“Similarly, he deemed it ‘appropriate’ to designate the Minister of Police – not the SAPS – to determine how much he is to pay back, ignoring the Public Protector. The president deliberately erected a ‘parallel process’ that the SCA determined was inconsistent with due process.”
The DA said Zuma had treated the public protector’s office with contempt so far.
“His conduct throughout this process has been marred by obfuscation, unlawfulness and a blatant disregard for the Constitution.”
In the affidavit, the DA said the new position by Zuma that he had complied with the remedial actions was “bizarre”.
Using the example of Zuma’s appearances in Parliament – where he earlier this year told the National Assembly that he had not thought of the date when he would pay back the money – the DA contended the president did not comply with the remedial actions.