Pretoria - Public Protector Thuli Madonsela said it was immaterial if the Nkandla swimming pool was dirty, or the visitors’ centre small, because the real question was whether the correct authority was obtained to erect these as security measures.
And the March 2014 “Secure in Comfort” report showed these structures, alongside the cattle kraal, chicken run and amphitheatre, were not identified as required minimum security measures, or listed in the security assessment of the presidential Nkandla rural homestead.
Instead the structures were added after interactions at different levels on what appeared to be often dubious grounds.
Madonsela on Monday took the unprecedented step of publicly addressing her concerns in the form of a letter to National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete after more than two weeks of criticism of her, the Office of the Public Protector and the Nkandla report.
The often sharp digs at Madonsela come as Parliament’s special Nkandla committee is considering the report of Police Minister Nkosinathi Nhleko, which absolved President Jacob Zuma from having to repay anything as all structures were security measures.
Last month, MPs visited Nkandla, with comments aired about the shoddy workmanship. Subsequently, ANC MPs also questioned Madonsela’s ability to judge security measures and procedural points related to her report’s release.
Last week, ANC MPs used their numbers in the committee to ensure neither Madonsela nor other witnesses would be called as requested by opposition parties. This came after a day of briefing by the police and public works ministers, who speckled their presentations with references to the public protector and other reports on the R215 million taxpayer-funded Nkandla security upgrades.
On the eve of the ad hoc Nkandla committee meeting on Tuesday to consider its draft report – a minority opposition report is also in the making – Madonsela expressed sadness at not being given the opportunity to interact with MPs.
“I’m deeply saddened that I have to use the media as a platform to address you,” she said, adding it was crucial to correct distortions amid unprecedented “vitriolic attacks” on her office.
The ANC in Parliament said: “Advocate Madonsela is acting hastily and is interfering in the work of Parliament.
“The appropriate thing to do would have been for her to wait until the committee releases a report on its work and makes an informed judgment regarding whether her appearance before the committee would have assisted Parliament to reach a different conclusion.”
Moloto Mothapo, spokesman for the office of the ANC chief whip, said the parliamentary majority party respected all constitutionally protected Chapter 9 institutions supporting democracy, but calling the public protector before the ad hoc committee “would be tantamount to rehashing the investigation”. The committee’s task was to consider the police minister’s report, he added.
The spokeswoman for the Office of the Speaker, Mandlakazi Sigcawu, said: “It’s unfortunate that the public protector opted to address the Speaker on such a platform, as Parliament had appropriate avenues for engagement.”
The SACP said Madonsela “is arrogantly undermining Parliament and its processes”, and her public briefing left the impression “there possibly may be ulterior political motives that she is pushing”.
However, opposition parties came out in support of Madonsela. United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa said Madonsela had stood her ground from day one and none of the other reports had yet dealt with her findings.
“She’s right and she must continue to be a voice of reason. We are tired of name-calling by the ANC every time one of their own is in trouble,” Holomisa said.
DA MP James Selfe said it was critical if Zuma disagreed with the public protector’s finding on Nkandla that he should have taken the report on review to court; asking his police minister to make a determination was unconstitutional.
“The ad hoc committee should set aside the Zuma-Nhleko report on the grounds that its very existence is legally untenable and therefore irrational,” Selfe added.
Freedom Front Plus chief whip Corné Mulder said Madonsela’s statement showed the ANC was “completely foolish and incompetent”, adding that she had answered all the innuendos and gossip delivered behind her back.
On Monday, Madonsela said there was no legal basis for Nhleko’s report, effectively an internal executive review.
“It cannot be done with the Auditor-General and it cannot be done with the Electoral Commission and the others,” she said, emphasising an earlier statement that her office appeared to have been singled out for criticism among the Chapter 9 institutions.
Madonsela said the “Secure in Comfort” report nowhere suggested the police minister should make any repayment determination.
Instead, the president, with guidance from the SAPS and Treasury, must take steps to determine the repayment of reasonable costs.
Madonsela also raised concerns that the unprecedented “vitriolic attacks” on her and her office in the Nkandla debacle were creating an environment for “worrying defiant trends”.
For example, one director-general wrote a two-paragraph letter that nothing had changed following the public protector finding the department had to remedy its maladministration, which cost a young father his job.
A municipality did not even submit the required implementation plan to remedy maladministration that the public protector found.
“Up until this fiasco, people would at least respect timelines,” Madonsela said.
The Nkandla report is the 11th conducted under the Executive Ethics Act, and the fifth dealing with benefits to members of the executive.
However, according to Madonsela, “this office has never received such vitriolic attacks as it has over this (Nkandla) report”.
Unlike other constitutionally protected Chapter 9 institutions protecting democracy, the public protector’s appeared to be singled out. “I can also not imagine a discussion of the Auditor-General’s or the Electoral Commission’s report without engaging with it and the making of disparaging remarks without engaging these institutions,” she said.
During the course of the parliamentary Nkandla committee, including last month’s visit to the presidential homestead, Madonsela and her office were sharply criticised. The criticism followed terse interactions between MPs and Madonsela in the justice committee, where ANC MPs earlier accused opposition parties of being in cahoots with the public protector.
Last year, Madonsela was called a CIA plant, and later the State Security Agency instituted an investigation into a discredited blog that claimed she was a spy.
The public protector, among others, probes conduct in state affairs and in the public administration suspected to be deemed improper and could result in prejudice, according to section 182 of the constitution.
Political Burea
u
u
0 comments:
Post a Comment