Public Protectors Recommendations Binding On Gauteng Infrastructure Department

Public Protector’s Findings

The Constitutional Court ruling on Nkandla, which emphasised the binding nature of the Public Protector’s findings, means that the Gauteng Department of Infrastructure (DID) must pay out a sub-contractor who worked on the infamous Suikerbosrand project in 2014 a sum of more than R9.6 million.

The Public Protector indicated that this amount should be paid over a period of two months, however DID – blatantly ignoring the Public Protector wrote to the contractor indicating that they would not pay.

Years down the line, and after placing the contractor in a financially precarious position, DID has agreed to pay – as long as it runs its own parallel investigation, much like the Cabinet did when it tried to avoid the Nkandla scandal.

Claims of Damages

Recently, a different contractor approached the Public Protector requesting that her office investigate DID for claims of damages suffered whilst working on a DID site.  Despite referral to the Head of Department of DID as well as the Chairperson of the DID Portfolio Committee, the department has still not carried out the action proposed.

Neither the Department, nor its political head can feign ignorance as to the binding nature of the Public Protectors recommendations.

I will be writing to Jacob Mamabolo, the newly appointed MEC of DID drawing his attention to these matters, and should he fail to respond, I will ensure they are referred back to the Public Protector.

 

Media enquiries:

Alan Fuchs MPL

DA Gauteng Shadow MEC for Infrastructure Development

060 558 8313

[Image source]

Gauteng ANC Throws In The Towel And Bows To Jacob Zuma

Zuma’s Non-apology

The decision taken by the ANC in Gauteng to accept Jacob Zuma’s non-apology over the Nkandla scandal – and thereby condoning his violation of the Constitution – demonstrates yet again that the ANC in Gauteng backs Jacob Zuma and his job-killing corruption.

Their half-hearted attempt to show public condemnation over the last month is now seen for what it is: a poorly executed election ploy. Because when the going gets tough, they fall into line, and support a man who has trampled over our constitution and overseen millions of job losses.

We will Bring Change

The reality is that the ANC in Gauteng, just like the ANC in the rest of the country, puts Jacob Zuma first and the people of South Africa last.

The ANC has changed. It is no longer the party of Nelson Mandela. It is a party that puts self-enrichment and the protection of one man ahead of the best interests of the people.

The only way to change this is to vote for the DA. We will bring change that will stop corruption, create jobs and deliver better services. And we will do this every day across Gauteng– because we want to move the province and South Africa forward again.

 

Media enquiries:

John Moodey MPL

DA Gauteng Provincial Leader

082 960 3743

Nkandla: DA Moves To Impeach Zuma Following Constitutional Court Ruling

Impeach President Zuma

Following today’s judgement by the Constitutional Court in the much anticipated Nkandla matter, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has officially begun the process to impeach President Jacob Zuma, in terms of Section 89(1) of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court – the highest court in the land – found that President Zuma failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land by disregarding the Public Protectors’ report. This pivotal judgment confirms the DA’s long held contention that President Zuma seriously violated the Constitution when he sought to undermine the Public Protector’s remedial actions by instituting parallel investigative processes, and his subsequent failure to implement her remedial action.

Section 89(1) of the Constitution states that “The National Assembly, by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members, may remove the President from office only on the grounds of – 

 (a) a serious violation of the Constitution or the law;

(b) serious misconduct; or

(c) inability to perform the functions of office.”

Constitutional Court Ruling

Today’s ruling is clear in this regard: President Jacob Zuma’s action amounts to a serious violation of the Constitution, and constitutes grounds for impeachment.

Up until recently, the President has argued that he was not obliged to heed this remedial action, and that such remedial action was simply advice which he could take or ignore. In his letter to the Public Protector dated 11 September 2014, he argued that her role was akin to that of an Ombud and she could not issue “judgements to be followed under pain of a contempt order.” Instead he described her reports as “useful tools in assisting democracy in a cooperative manner, sometimes rather forcefully”. He specifically denied that they were binding on him.

On the 09 February 2016 counsel for President Zuma, The Speaker of the National Assembly, Baleka Mbete and The Minister of Police, Nathi Nhleko, all eventually conceded that indeed the powers of the Public Protector have legal consequences and can only be challenged by way of judicial review. This is bizarre given that the DA had been arguing this from the very beginning.

Indeed it has been our assertion that Parliament failed to satisfy its constitutional mandate to hold the Executive to account in terms of section 55(2) of the Constitution by adopting the Police Minister’s report which we contend is- in and of itself- born from fatal errors in law because this amounts to the establishment of a parallel process as expressly prohibited by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). This was done- no doubt- to circumvent the remedial actions as ordered by the Public Protector and to thwart the discharge of her mandate. They have effectively aided and abetted the President in his vexatious attempts to unravel our hard won constitutional order.

Public Protector

Our Constitution is binding on all organs of state, including the President. To have ignored a constitutional organ, in the form of the Public Protector, for over two years, and to have employed a series of stratagems, including the Police Minister’s Report and the three ad hoc parliamentary committees, to “second guess” and “ignore” the Public Protector required judicial action.

Having succeeded in obtaining the Constitutional Court’s determination; I have therefore written to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Baleka Mbete, notifying her of such, and have tabled a notice of motion resolving to remove President Zuma from office in terms of section 89(1)(a) of the Constitution. Included therein are the President’s past and present failings to act in manner commensurate with the Constitution as evidenced by court judgements finding adversely against his conduct in the al-Bashir and Simelane debacles and the attempt to extend the term of office of the Chief Justice. In all these cases the Courts found that his actions were inconsistent with that of the Constitution.

Moreover, the Office of the Public Protector remains an integral part of a functioning democracy, and today’s judgment provides legal certainty and clarity as to the Public Protector’s powers.

Today’s finding by the Constitutional Court is a victory for our Constitution, a victory for the Rule of Law, and a victory for the South African people.

 

 

Media Enquiries:

Mabine Seabe

Spokesperson to the DA Leader

084 677 7851