‘Nkandla judgment will be a seminal moment for SA’

The Democratic Alliance (DA) posited  that on Tuesday the Constitutional Court judgement in the Nkandla matter on Thursday will “mark a seminal moment for South Africa’s democracy”.
James Selfe, the chairman of the DA’s federal executive, said the party was confident that the Constitutional Court would “place decisive sanctions on all those implicated in the abuse of public funds to ensure that never again is the public purse pilfered on such a large scale at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who so desperately need state resources to uplift them from poverty and other social ills”.
The DA and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) took President Jacob Zuma and speaker of Parliament, Baleka Mbete, to court after Zuma failed to heed the directives of the Public Protector that he should pay back some of the R216 million of state money spent on security upgrades to his private residence at Nkandla, in rural KwaZulu-Natal.
Selfe said the DA argued in February “that President Zuma’s failure to engage rationally with the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action pertaining to him was manifestly irrational, illegal and unconstitutional.
“We furthermore contend that the President’s decision to substitute the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector with a determination by the Police Minister, SIU (Special Investigating Unit) or Parliament on whether he was liable for any of the costs was illegal and unconstitutional from the very outset”.
The EFF and the DA want the court to find that the president breached the constitution by failing to heed the Public Protector’s directive that he repay money spent on non-security upgrades like the swimming pool and cattle kraal.
“Legal certainty about the powers of the Public Protector, and the force and effect of remedial action taken by the Public Protector, are vital to the successful functioning of South Africa’s constitutional democracy,” Selfe said.
It is, however, possible that the Constitutional Court will decide on Thursday that the applicants do not have the right to direct access to the highest court in the land.
After refusing for more than a year to heed Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s directive to reimburse the state, Zuma last month submitted a settlement proposal offering to repay a portion of the funds spent. The opposition said this was a clear indication that he feared he would lose the case.
Madonsela found that Zuma had derived undue benefit from the project that began as a security upgrade but ballooned to include luxuries. She directed that he reimburse the state a reasonable sum to be determined with the help of National Treasury and the police service, for these items which did not constitute security features.
Zuma left this in the hands of Police Minister Nathi Nhleko, who found that each of the five additions in fact served a vital security purpose and that the president therefore did not owe the state a cent. Nhleko’s conclusion was muscled through Parliament by the African National Congress (ANC) majority, with the minister saying he hoped this was the end of the Nkandla controversy.
His eleventh hour offer saw the president propose that the process be repeated by the Auditor-General and finance minister. And his laywer, Jeremy Gauntlett, told the court that Nhleko’s report had become irrelevant. However, legal experts have said it would be impossible for the court to confirm an order that deviated from Madonsela’s initial instructions.
According to a letter the registrar’s office sent to the parties to the case, the ruling is due at 10am on Thursday.