President Jacob Zuma. Picture: GCIS
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma’s response to the public protector’s report on the security upgrades at his private Nkandla home is breathtaking in the sense that he effectively breaks ranks with the official line of his Cabinet and his party, the African National Congress (ANC).
In his letter to National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu tabled in Parliament on Thursday, Mr Zuma stated he was waiting for an interim report from the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) before making a decision on what to do next.
Mr Zuma said the security cluster of ministers had produced their report, the public protector had made her findings and now he just needed the SIU report.
The second-last paragraph of the letter says: "There are stark differences both in respect of the findings as well as the remedial action proposed by the two reports ( security cluster’s and public protector’s). This much is clear from the reports as well as the very public pronouncements made by the respective parties.
"In my experience in government I have not encountered such an anomaly ."
What makes the letter so astonishing is that Mr Zuma explicitly contradicts the statement by the Cabinet that the public protector’s and security cluster minister’s reports had come to essentially the same conclusion.
In the ANC’s March 20 statement in reaction to the public protector’s report it said both the security cluster and the public protector report found serious irregularities in the implementation of the project. Further, that the reports came to the determination that those who failed in the conduct of their duties should face the appropriate consequences, be they government officials, ministers or former ministers.
It went on to say that the corrective measures suggested were similar. "Many of them are in advanced stages of implementation and we commend the speed with which government has moved to curb the identified abuses," the Cabinet’s March statement said. "It is our information that some criminal cases have already been referred... to the law enforcement agencies.
"As asserted before, it is our view that the state must pursue all those who accessed state funds fraudulently."
The ANC, for its part, said areas of disagreement between the two reports was what should be done with costs of the relocation of the kraal, the chicken run, the visitors centre, the swimming pool and the so-called amphitheatre. The party recommended that the government resolve the issue.
"If agreement cannot be reached within a short space of time, competent institutions of state must review the reports and make a determination," the ANC said. "This highlights the dangers of two state institutions investigating the same matter ."
But now Mr Zuma has decided that the SIU report would be the final arbitrator on what should be done. Critics have already pointed out that the SIU does not have the same status and gravitas as the public protector’s office.
The public protector is a constitutionally mandated institution with the primary role of ensuring that the state operates within the spirit of the law through transparency and accountability.
In other words, the public protector’s investigation is about how the decisions were made that allowed spending on Nkandla to skyrocket to R215m with a final cost estimated to be R246m.
The SIU operates only on presidential proclamation, meaning that its terms of reference can be broadened or narrowed as the head of state decides. Its terms of reference are essentially who bought what, for how much and if they were overcharged.
Mr Zuma has now put the SIU in an almost impossible situation. If it absolves him and the Cabinet of wrongdoing by blaming lower-ranking officials, it will seem to be doing his bidding. If it finds that the fault lay with Mr Zuma and his cabinet, then it could be political suicide for the unit and its head Vas Soni.
Finally, if Mr Zuma is playing for touch by postponing or neutralising any kind of political fallout ahead of the May 7 general election, then surely his decision to wait for the SIU is just as much of a gamble as were the debate in Parliament to happen just ahead of the polls.
"The Nkandla issue in the hands of the opposition is pretty much a blunt instrument," a source said. "However, in the hands of a faction of the ANC it can very much be a sharp dagger."
ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, the source said, had ruled out any change to the party’s presidential candidate ahead of the election. "Mr Mantashe has just said Mr Zuma will remain the candidate.
"His statement was just that, he did not say that Mr Zuma was an asset. Rather, it was a realisation that changing the candidate just ahead of the polls would be political suicide."
The source said Mr Zuma would be more vulnerable to any ANC faction that might decide he is a liability after the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment