Zuma’s free higher education announcement nothing more than reckless politicking

The announcement by President Jacob Zuma that government will introduce fully subsidised free higher education and training for poor and working-class undergraduate students while welcomed, is completely uncosted and therefore must be seen for what it is, playing politics with the hopes and futures of millions of young people.
The statement is a combination of populist politicking, deceptive language, uncosted proposals and one positively dangerous assertion
The President waited until the very end of the year so that he could make a splash at the ANC conference, while students, their families and the institutions they wish to attend anxiously awaited news. Such cheap politicking is appalling. Unsurprisingly, his statement is full of promises, but lacking actual implementation details.
The President has said that full-cost “free” education will be offered to poor and working-class students, students with a family income of less than R350 000. This is nothing new – it is simply a continuation of what the ANC has always said. Students from the “fees must fall” movement will be disappointed.
This limited offer of “free education for the poor” has not been financially feasible. It will inevitably entail an increase in the NSFAS budget by at least 100% – from the current R11bn to about R22bn. In fact, the number of students in this bracket is entirely unknown and this proposal probably entails an even higher number.  It could bring the cost of NSFAS up to R30bn.
Under the President’s new ‘plan’, NSFAS will require a massive expansion to provide funding grants to students from families earning less than R350 000. Major administrative problems have hampered NSFAS this year, with some applicants waiting months for a response. The President proposes that all NSFAS loans be converted to grants, thus rejecting entirely all the work that has been done by Heher, NSFAS and others, into various sorts of loan schemes which would provide the fiscus with some return on its outlay. The scheme will clearly need vastly improved systems to handle the expanded volume of applications.
We welcome the announcement that University subsidies will be increased from 0.68 of GDP to 1% of GDP over the next five years, as it has been something we have fought for over the past several years. However, this increase is completely uncosted.
Furthermore, in the first year of this increase, the Presidency has decreed that the increase goes straight into funding his arbitrary decree that “no fee increase” will need be paid by students whose families earn under R600 000. This too is uncosted. In previous years it cost something like R2.5bn.
The President has also said that TVET fees will be fully subsidised over the full period of study rather than just the first year, which is currently the case, and that TVET student grants will be expanded to include a number of other costs. This is welcome but once again there is no indication that the budget will be able to carry this cost.
The President proposes that investment in infrastructure, particularly student accommodation, will increase – again without any figures; and that the massive problem of student debt will be “addressed by the Department”, without any clear indication as to how this will be addressed.
The further promises of funding for student accommodation – especially at TVETs – sounds pleasing until we remember that the Department of Higher Education (DHET) has no plans or funding in place to address this crucial accommodation shortage. The DHET has admitted that it doesn’t even know how many student accommodation beds are currently available at TVETs.
The DA stands by the three-tiered model for funding that we proposed to the Heher Commission. Our model is designed to keep the system stable, and at the same time to ensure that “missing middle” students are not left behind, while poor students are covered financially.
Under our model, the poorest students would receive loans, convertible to grants upon success, which would cover all their costs. Students in middle-level income bands would qualify for a smaller portion of support, graded depending on their family income. Students who are able to pay their own fees would be required to do so – and certainly not be penalized for doing so.
Lurking within the President’s statement is one line which raises the alarm: a statement that the “hierarchical and autonomous character” of Universities is of great concern to the ANC. This is nothing more than an implicit threat to the constitutionally protected principle of academic freedom and university autonomy.
It must also be said that Higher Education can’t be the only option for students. At this stage, there will be millions of students who won’t be accepted into university. It is therefore critical that we offer our youth other opportunities and we should be investing in internship programs and job-creating programs.
We fear that this statement will cause more harm than good. It makes unsustainable and uncosted offers to students, raises expectations and fails to indicate that the huge bureaucracy needed to implement it is in place. We remain concerned that the start of the academic year of 2018 will entail turmoil and protest, and frustration on the part of students and the institutions that they attend.
If the President wants to get serious about funding Higher Education, he needs to stop making politically expedient statements that he delays for his own benefit. As has become all too familiar, the President has placed his interests above that of South Africans, again.

Reconciliation Day: Our differences must bring us together, not divide us

Our country’s Day of Reconciliation affords us all an opportunity to reflect on the progress we’ve made in our journey towards a united, non-racial and prosperous nation 23 years after the dawn of democracy. As we take stock of where we are as a country, we must recommit to work together in building a society in which our differences do not tear us apart, but instead bring us together as South Africans.
The vision for a reconciled South Africa is rooted in the text of our Constitution, calling on us all to “Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights”. It is the DA’s mission to do all we can to make this vision a reality.
On this Reconciliation Day, we must be resolute in our fight against racism, against injustice, and against inequality. Part of building a reconciled nation rests on ensuring that we bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots, the insiders and the outsiders, and that we root out corruption which steals from our people.
We acknowledge the material inequalities still prevalent in society, which threaten to derail our reconciliation project. That is why where we are in government, the DA is committed to fixing the wrongs of the past by creating opportunities for all, levelling the playing field, rooting out corruption, and delivering quality services to all – especially the poor.
We must call out those who relentlessly point out our differences in a sinister attempt to drive our people apart. We will not stand back while a small minority seek to divide us for political and personal gain. The majority of South Africans are committed to the project of reconciliation, and we will continuously work to ensure that our country’s motto of Unity in Diversity becomes a reality, as we build a non-sexist, non-racial and united country for all people.
It is for this reason a new coalition is needed based on a set of shared values. We need political parties to build a new coalition in 2019 based on the values of constitutionalism, non racialism, the rule of law, and zero tolerance for corruption. It is in that we find our common mission and identity – that South Africa should belong to all who call it home.
On behalf of the DA, I would like wish all South Africans a reflective Day of Reconciliation, where we recommit ourselves to building unity for a better South Africa.

Minister Van Rooyen must urgently intervene in the water and electricity cuts

With the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on water and electricity due to table its full report on findings and recommendations into the 30 defaulting municipalities today, the DA sincerely doubts that they will be able to do so.
The DA will therefore write to the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (and Chairperson of the IMC), Des van Rooyen, to request that he commits to intervening in the water and electricity cuts to defaulting municipalities by no later than Friday next week.
The DA will further seek assurance from Minister van Rooyen that there will be no water and electricity cuts, until such time as the findings and recommendations of the full report have been made, and bold remedial action taken.
It is unfair that innocent citizens, who pay their municipal bills every month, be subjected to such harsh measures as a result of the failure of their municipalities.
With regards to the water debt, 25 municipalities have been in contact with the Department of Water and Sanitation. The remaining 5 face possible water throttling. These include: Msukaligwa Local Municipality; Madibeng Local Municipality; Maluti A Phofung Local Municipality; Matjabeng Local Municipality; and Ngaka Modiri Molema Local Municipality.
In terms of the electricity debt, the Thaba Chweu Municipality in Mpumalanga and Walter Sisulu Municipality in the Eastern Cape are currently experiencing interruptions. Interruptions at Mbombela have been averted as they have made payment arrangements with the Department of Water and Sanitation. The  Emalahleni Municipality matter is now before the High Court in Pretoria, and is likely only to be heard early in the New Year. A number of other municipalities remain at risk of throttling if their debt to the electricity utility is not adequately addressed.
With December currently upon us, it is disheartening to see that residents and businesses could potentially face a dark and water-deprived festive season.
The dire situation of these defaulting municipalities points towards a lack of political will and effective leadership in the ANC to truly govern in the best interests of South African citizens.
The governing party is clearly incapable of fixing the systemic failures over which it has presided and in fact worsened. It has failed to properly manage the assets of the nation.
The DA expects a swift and detailed response from Minister van Rooyen, by no later than Friday next week, committing to intervening in the water and electricity cuts.

Matshela Koko disciplinary hearing a farce, DA to lay charges

On Monday, 18 December 2017, the DA will lay charges against the newly reinstated Eskom CEO Matshela Koko. This follows the sham of a disciplinary hearing, clearing Koko of all charges relating to misconduct.
Earlier this year it came to light that Koko allegedly awarded lucrative Eskom contracts, worth R1 billion, to Impulse International, a company linked to his stepdaughter. He was also apparently involved in approving a R650 million loan from Eskom to Gupta-linked Tegeta, in order to ensure that the Guptas purchased Optimum.
Since Eskom and the Minister of Public Enterprises, Lynne Brown, are incapable of holding the seemingly captured and heavily implicated Koko to account, it is up to the Hawks to investigate the matter.
It is quite clear that this disciplinary hearing was never meant to investigate these serious allegations brought against Koko, but was rather a move to have him reinstated.
The hearing has been a complete and absolute farce from beginning to end. Koko was allegedly consulted on the appointment of the chairperson for his own disciplinary hearing.
There were also reports of key witnesses having failed to appear because of intimidation and manipulation, that there had been massive delays, and the initial evidence leader Sebetja Matsaung was replaced as he appeared ill-prepared and ineffectual.
The DA will continue to fight against the capture of Eskom. The executives and management at Eskom are not serious about rooting out corruption. If they were, Koko would not have been allowed back at the power utility.

First Metro Police precinct opened in NMB

The fight against drug trafficking and abuse, gangsterism, domestic violence, reckless driving and general lawlessness took a giant step forward when the Executive Mayor of DA-led Nelson Mandela Bay, Athol Trollip, opened a first-of-its-kind police precinct in the Northern Areas, Bloemendal in July this year.
This followed a promise made by the Mayor at the Metro Police Passing Out Parade held in March, namely that the Northern Areas would be a one of the focus areas for the Metro Police, working under the wing of the South African Police Services.
To date, two satellite stations have been opened and 114 new, quality Metro Police officers have been employed to contribute towards fighting crime and keeping the streets of NMB safer.
The officers have launched their own crime-fighting initiatives and will enforce municipal bylaws, set up road blocks focusing on vehicle and driver fitness, and undertake joint crime-fighting operations with the SAPS and government entities, like Home Affairs.

We embarked on an intensive Integrated Development Plan (IDP) where our community made it clear to us that they want a safe and caring city. That is a commitment we have made, and we must deliver on that.
– NMB Mayor, Athol Trollip.

Community members were equally excited about the opening of the facility, given the fact that crime has been a serious problem in their communities. The Metro Police came at the perfect time. Many community members were even pleased that the precinct has been built right in the heart of Bethelsdorp.
Click here to read more delivery success stories from the DA’s 2017 year in local government.

SASSA CEO splurges 20 million on seemingly irregular KZN events

According to documentation seen by the DA, the Acting SASSA CEO, Ms Pearl Bhengu, hastily approved a request for R20 million for 5 events in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). These “Beneficiary Education and Awareness campaigns on the New Payment System as well as the Foster Care Mop-up project” events are purportedly meant to create awareness regarding the new grant payment system.
The DA is of the belief that these events are not only exorbitant but we also question why SASSA can host awareness events when the agreement between SASSA and the South African Post Office (SAPO) was not yet finalised at the time. We also have reason to believe that Ms Bhengu and Acting SASSA General Manager, Armstrong Malope, have possibly flouted supply chain management procedures.
Ms Bhengu received the R20 million request on 4 December and hastily approved it the following day, on 5 December. The agreement between SASSA and SAPO was only announced on 10 December.
The request itself is marred by irregularities. The fact that all these events are scheduled to be held in KZN from 12 December to 23 December 2017 also raises eyebrows. If the purpose was truly to create awareness why are all the events being hosted in one province?
The events were scheduled as follows: EMakhosini on 12 December 2017; KwaMashu on 14 December 2017; Jozini on 18 December 2017; Melmoth on 22 December 2017; and Matshensikazi on 23 December 2017.
The truth seems to be that the events are nothing more than a smokescreen to extend the dodging Minister Bathabile Dlamini’s patronage networks in KZN.
Furthermore, the documentation makes no mention of any company which will provide services for the events. There are no itemised quotes attached or any tender numbers indicated.
The DA has written to Ms Bhengu to request an immediate cancellation of the 3 events still to take place and for detailed information on the following:

  • A detailed report on the supply chain procedures and an explanation of the real intentions behind the events.
  • The full list of contractors who received payments.
  • Answers as to why the events were approved 5 days before a new payment system were announced? And why these events are exclusive to KZN?

The DA will also explore possible charges against Ms Bhengu and Mr Malope for seemingly flouting supply chain management procedures.
The fact that Ms Bhengu hastily approved these events show that she might not be suitable for her position as Acting SASSA CEO. R20 million is an astonishing figure and could finance more than 52 000 child grants.
The DA will not allow for any further breaches of procedures at SASSA. Under Ms Bhengu’s and Dodging Dlamini’s  leadership, SASSA failed and delayed institutionalising the payment of social grants and once again endangered the livelihoods of 17 million vulnerable South Africans.

DA acts in the interest of a clean government that delivers for Cape Town

The DA’s Federal Executive became aware of the alleged existence of a number of issues in the DA’s City of Cape Town caucus including a series of reports and an affidavit containing troubling allegations of maladministration in the City.
Due to the nature and extent of such challenges, and the need for transparency and clarity, the Federal Executive resolved to establish a sub-committee to investigate the matter in a responsive and timely fashion.
The sub-committee has now completed its work, and has found sufficient management and governance-related challenges prevalent in the DA’s City of Cape Town caucus, negatively impacting the City’s mandate to govern efficiently for the people of Cape Town.
As an organisation, the DA prides itself on excellent governance standards, guided by the values of accountability and transparency. It was for this reason that the Leader directed the caucus of the COCT to establish an independent investigation to probe these allegations.
In the light of these developments, it was the view of the Federal Executive that the Mayor of Cape Town, Patricia De Lille, needed to be placed on suspension pending the outcome of these ongoing investigations. The Federal Executive has also asked her to supply reasons why she should not resign as the mayor. At this stage, no decision, other than suspension has been made, pending the provision of the reasons requested by the Federal Executive.
The DA remains committed to clean and efficient administrations where we govern. That is why it is of paramount importance that we get to the bottom of these allegations and swift leadership changes be made should they be found to be true so that our commitment to deliver to the people of Cape Town is not derailed.
We believe that this is the first step towards bringing new management to the City of Cape Town caucus that is stable, functional, and focused on delivering the highest quality of services to all of its residents.

Jacob Zuma must pay R6 million in legal fees and be charged with perjury

We find ourselves at a truly defining moment in our nation’s young democracy. Yesterday I was present at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria where a full bench handed down an historic and instructive ruling rejecting President Zuma’s baseless review of the Public Protector’s State of Capture report and its recommendations.
The court unanimously found that the Public Protector’s State of Capture report stands as is, and the President’s conduct in trying to block the release of the report was an “abuse of judicial process” and an attempt to “stymie the fulfilment of a constitutional obligation by the Office of the Public Protector”.
As such, the Court ordered President Zuma to personally pay the legal costs of his failed attempt to interdict the release of the report, as well as the costs of the failed review proceedings, which we estimate at around R6 million.
This defeat for Zuma is a landmark victory for the people of South Africa. For too long, South Africans have been personally paying the extravagant legal bill of a President who – instead of leading a country – spends most of his days in court, abusing legal process in order to keep himself and his friends and family in business and out of prison.
The Court’s judgment is a strong indictment on the leadership of Jacob Zuma. There are several overt statements by the Court that directly support the view that the President is indeed running a shadow mafia state for his own benefit. This is most aptly described by Judge Mlambo at paragraph 116 of the judgment, where he states that:
[t]he allegations of State Capture in the report are extremely serious. They amount to allegations that the President and members of the Executive have exercised their powers, at least on occasion, not in the public interest as they are required to do by the Constitution, but rather at the behest of a private family and to further its financial interests.”
Sadly, this has become the ANC’s legacy under Jacob Zuma: a party fixated on self-enrichment, and self-advancement – to the detriment of the people of our nation. Whatever happens at the ANC’s elective conference over the next few days is immaterial to the future of South Africa. No matter who is elected, the internal systems of patronage and self-enrichment cannot be overturned by one person. The ANC is past the point of no return, and cannot self-correct. The future of South Africa lies in a coalition-led government post 2019.
The description of “State Capture” in the current context is a simple one, and was well defined by the Court. That is, the relationship between the President and the Gupta family having evolved to the point where the Gupta family have influence over the appointment of cabinet ministers and directors on boards of SOEs, and then “leveraging those relationships to get preferential treatment in state contracts, access to state-provided finance, and award of business licences.”
This is the evil that is stealing opportunity from our people, and this is the evil we will continue to fight so that corruption and “State Capture” is defeated, and all South Africans are given the chance to access opportunity.
Implementation of the Public Protector’s recommendations
The effect of yesterday’s unanimous judgment is that the Public Protector’s State of Capture report stands as is, along with its binding recommendations. Thus the President must at once establish a Judicial Commission of Inquiry into “State Capture” – as ordered to by the Public Protector. There can be no more delays in the quest for accountability in this matter. The commission must be established within 30 days, which makes Friday 12 January 2018 the final day for establishment.
The commission must be headed by a judge selected by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, and has 180 days to complete its work.
We are of the view that this is the appropriate remedial action in order to thoroughly and independently investigate the prima facie evidence of “State Capture”. As the court stated yesterday, the Public Protector’s report constitutes prima facie findings that point to serious misconduct or impropriety on the part of the President, the Gupta family, and the persons, functionaries and entities referred to in the report. Moreover, this evidence is a sufficient and appropriate basis for the Public Protector to have taken remedial action.
In her report, the Public Protector was clear in saying that the President’s constitutional power to establish a Judicial Commission of Inquiry as per section 84(2)(f) is not an untrammelled one. In fact, the Court states that from the wording of section 84, the power to establish a commission of inquiry must be exercised within the constraints that the constitution imposes.
Indeed, Section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution requires the Public Protector to provide an effective remedy for state misconduct. And in this matter and context, the effective remedy the Public Protector elected was to order further investigation and for the President to establish a Judicial Commission of Inquiry.
The President has a “clear, personal interest in the outcome of the commission”. Therefore the court found that the Public Protector’s recommendation that the Chief Justice select the judge who is to preside over the commission is “both necessary and appropriate in order to render the remedial action taken suitable and effective”.
If the President fails to establish the commission within 30 days, the DA will launch an application in the High Court in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court (URC) to force compliance with the rulings – regardless of any appeal by President Zuma and his litigious legal team.
Legal Costs
The Court ordered President Zuma to personally pay the legal costs of both his attempt to interdict the release of the State of Capture report, as well as the entire review proceedings whereby he sought to set the report aside.
This ruling must welcomed. For too long, Jacob Zuma has wasted millions on funding his constant and frivolous litigation.
The reason given by the court for such a strong ruling is that the President’s action in attempting to block the release of the report amounted to an “abuse of judicial process”, and an attempt to stymie the fulfilment of a constitutional obligation by the Office of the Public Protector”. Moreover, the Court found that the review application was a “clear non-starter”, and the President was “seriously reckless” in pursuing it as he has done. This conduct, the court finds, falls far short of the standard expressed in Section 195 of the Constitution.
As South Africans, it should concern us that this is the first instance since the dawn of democracy in 1994 that a sitting President has been required to personally pay – out of his/her own pocket – the costs of litigation. This is the mark of a President who is solely focused on personal gain – not the interests of the country and its people.
On a conservative estimate, taking into consideration the DA’s own expenditure on this matter, we estimate the total cost the President is liable for at roughly R6 million – which is comparable to his court-ordered payment of the non-security upgrades at his Nkandla homestead. This figure compromises an estimate of R4.45 million for litigants who brought the action, as well as R1.5 million that was paid to his own legal team.  The court did not expressly require the President to pay his own legal costs, as these are covered by the State Attorney. However, we will be pressuring the President to personally pay these costs as well, since it is unconscionable that the taxpayers of South Africa should have to pick up the tab for his frivolous litigation.
It is our view that the President must personally pay back this money, he must do so within the next 30 days, and he must table his proof of payment in Parliament by no later than 31 January 2018.
Breach of Executive Ethics Code
In the DA’s initial complaint to the Public Protector, we requested an investigation into whether there had been a breach of the Executive Ethics Code by the President, specifically relating to his conduct around the appointment of cabinet ministers and SOE executives and board members.
In her investigation, the Public Protector interviewed a comprehensive list of witnesses, including Themba Maseko, Barbara Hogan, Nhlanhla Nene, Pravin Gordhan, Rob Davies, Ajay Gupta, Fana Hlongwane and Fikile Mbalula.
From the Public Protector’s findings, there is prima facie evidence of a breach of the Executive Ethics Code by the President, specifically the following sections:

  • Section 2.3(d) – Use of position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other persons;
  • Section 2.3 (e) – Use of information received in confidence in the course of their duties otherwise than in connection with the discharge of their duties;
  • Section 2.3(f) – Expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests;

This is concerned primarily with Jacob Zuma seemingly allowing the Gupta family and his son to engage or be involved in the process of appointing and dismissing members of the Executive.
The Public Protector was unable to come to a conclusive finding as to whether there was a definitive breach of the Code by the President. Thus, this must form part of the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry to be set up by 12 January 2018. If it fails to form part of the terms of reference, the DA will seek legal advice on whether the terms of reference can be reviewed and brought in line with the findings of Public Protector’s report.
A breach of the Executive Ethics Code and Act is a serious offence. If the President has breached such, this must be established and finalised by the commission of inquiry.
There is no doubt that Jacob Zuma is unfit to hold the highest office in the land. It is our view that whoever is elected at ANC elective conference must recall Zuma as President of the Republic as their first call.
If the next ANC President fails to do so, we will await the constitutional court application brought DA, EFF, COPE & UDM which seeks to establish the procedures to be followed in the impeachment proceedings against any President.
This case is vitally important as the Constitutional Court has the opportunity to provide guidelines for clear and proper procedures on impeachment proceedings, which will allow for those who break their oath of office to be held to account.
These rules should also ensure that no one party can use their majority to frustrate impeachment proceedings. They should also provide an opportunity, for instance, for the President to provide evidence in his or her defence or in mitigation.
Once this application is finalised, we will consider moving an impeachment motion in terms of section 89(1)(a) of the Constitution.
As yesterday’s judgment revealed, in addition to the damning findings the Public Protector made against Jacob Zuma in her State of Capture report, a number of other substantial adverse findings may be made against the President, including:

  • The President’s conduct in trying to block the release of the Public Protector’s State of Capture Report was an “abuse of judicial process” and an attempt to “stymie the fulfilment of a constitutional obligation by the Office of the Public Protector”;
  • The President’s continued litigation in this matter was “unreasonable” and that various statements made resulted in an “irreconcilable contradiction”, citing that the President potentially committed the crime of perjury; and
  • The President’s conduct falls far short of the high standards expressed in section 195 of the Constitution

President Zuma cannot continue to break the law, show disregard for the Constitution, and manipulate organs of state for his own benefit. He must be removed from office once and for all.
Perjury Charges
In yesterday’s judgment, the Court noted that President Zuma’s continued litigation in this matter was “unreasonable” and that various statements made resulted in an “irreconcilable contradiction”. While the court chose not to make any findings on whether perjury had been committed, as this was not their task on the day, it ruled out the possibility of any typing errors which might have excused the President’s inconsistencies.
Section 319(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 56 of 1955 states as follows: “If a person has made any statement on oath whether orally or in writing, and he thereafter on another oath makes another statement as aforesaid, which is in conflict with such first mentioned statement, he shall be guilty of an offence and may… be convicted of such an offence and punished with the penalties prescribed by law for the crime of perjury…”
In President Zuma’s answering affidavit filed on 21 October 2016 in the North Gauteng High Court, President Zuma stated that “Should it later transpire that the Public Protector produced a final report without affording me my right to just administrative action, then in that event the report should be released”.
In his second supporting affidavit, filed on 29 October 2016 in the same court, he stated the following: “I have stated under oath in the answering affidavit to the Democratic Alliance intervention application, that if the report is final it should be released. tTis is found at paragraph 81.  This is a typing error as it should have read that ‘(S)hould it later transpire that the Public Protector produced a final report without affording me my right to just administrative action, then in that event the report should not be released.’”
President Zuma’s statement in the First Affidavit, to the effect that the Report was not yet finalized, was false. On available evidence, there is good reason to believe that President Zuma knew it to be false at this time, or foresaw that it may be false.
President Zuma’s statement in the Second Affidavit, to the effect that he had committed a typing error, and had averred the opposite of what he intended, is undermined by his surrounding statements, and therefore similarly appears to be a false statement made under oath in bad faith
That the President continued to take legal action preventing the release of the Report, despite knowing that it had been finalized, is further evidence of his perjury. Any averment under oath in support of the application was inconsistent with the truth of the matter as he knew it to be, being that the Report was already finalized and therefore could not be legally interdicted from release.
Therefore, prima facie evidence exists to support the allegation that President Zuma has committed the crime of perjury, which must be further investigated by the police. Therefore we will today be handing over an affidavit to the police and laying criminal charges of perjury against President Jacob Zuma later today for his sinister attempt to mislead the courts, abuse judicial process, and ultimately undermine the law and the constitution of the republic.
Considering the scale and nature of this matter, we are confident it will be given the attention it requires from authorities.
Yesterday’s judgment was another win for democracy, the rule of law, and the people of South Africa. Jacob Zuma will face the consequences of his dirty deeds, no matter how much delaying or dithering he does.
It is now up to parliament, the police, and the commission of inquiry to bring justice in this matter. The DA will continue to ensure that the Constitution and the rule of law are respected and upheld by all who hold elected office, none more so than the President. Those who fail to do so will be brought to book.

DA requests urgent update from Denel regarding financial woes

The revelations this week that state-owned arms manufacturer, Denel, has run out of money is a damning indictment on its leadership and floundering executives.
The DA has written to Denel to request an urgent update on the true status of its financial affairs.
Denel must come clean and give an urgent response as the DA has received numerous requests for intervention. It is clear that the executives can no longer be trusted to solve this impending emergency. So much so that the DA has been asked to assess the situation.
It is clear that the Denel management is completely inept and unable to handle any emergency.
It has been reported that Denel is running so low on cash that it will not be able to pay their suppliers and their 4 000 employees December salaries. It is disheartening to imagine that during the festive season, Denel employees could potentially not receive their salaries after a long year of hard work and dedication.
Our state-owned enterprises (SOE) are in crisis and the fault must be placed squarely at the feet of the Minister of Public Enterprises, Lynne Brown. Under her watch our SOE’s have disintegrated due to corruption and gross mismanagement.
The DA expects a comprehensive and swift response from Denel. We need to get to the bottom of this financial mess to ensure that Denel employees and suppliers are paid.

Ten affordable housing projects coming to Cape Town!

Cape Town residents will be happy to know that ten City-owned sites in the city centre – Salt River and Woodstock – will be developed into affordable housing opportunities for those who need it most.
Cape Town’s population has increased by 56% between 1996 and 2016, and this trend is set to continue. The City of Cape Town estimates that approximately 650 000 families earning less than R13 000 a month will rely on the City for housing assistance between now and 2032.
Three of these sites have already been allocated to social housing institutions. The statutory land-use applications are under way and construction is expected to start in due course.
The City has also identified five City-owned land parcels for the development of affordable housing opportunities in Salt River, Woodstock, and the inner-city.

The precinct-led development in Woodstock and Salt River is a pivotal introduction to a customer-centric approach to housing delivery. It is a new way of doing business which we will apply in all of the other precincts where we intend to provide affordable and inclusionary housing on City-owned land.
– Councillor Brett Herron

Click here to read more delivery success stories from the DA’s 2017 year in local government