Publications
Partners
Nobody in their right mind should endorse the dysfunctional behaviour of EFF in an August institution like our Parliament. These EFF domestic worker , overall-clad so-called MPs are a bunch of lawless, disrespectful, Boko Haram-style terrorists and loose cannons who display their blatant disregard for dignified decorum in the House. This Institution has rules and committees and theirs is to use these Instruments and organs to hold the Executive to account. Turning Parliament into a circus is counter-productive. It feeds into the victim mentality of Zuma and in the end Zuma scores points in the battle of public sympathy. Bear in mind that it's not so much what the EFF is saying or doing but how they say and do that puts off the general public.
Zuma has responded to the Public Protector's (PP) report. That passes the accountability test. Parly is the employer body of the PP as a Ch. 9 Institution. The fact that you may not like Zuma's answers is a different matter altogether, at least he has been held to account to Parly. The PP report has a number of deficiencies in it in that it does not answer questions like: (1) Who took the money and how much; (2) where's that money; (3) If Zuma took the money where is the audit trail that traces how much he took, and into which account did the money go etc. PP report is vague, incomplete and fairly ambiguous when it comes to that. It has only served the purpose of scandalising Zuma without pinpointing when, how Zuma took the money and quantifying the money Zuma must pay back. In my opinion Parly must send this report back to PP as an incomplete, shambolic work-in-progress report.
Now for EFF to ask Zuma when he would pay back the money based on such an incomplete report of PP was a cheap shot. The money that was overspent on the Nkadla project is not in Zuma's account. The SIU has gone so many steps further than PP. They've identified and apportioned varying levels of criminal liability to certain stakeholders in their individual capacities. It makes sense that Police minister, as the custodian of the National Key Points Act, must decide first, if Zuma must pay pay and secondly, and if at all how much.
Zuma has responded to the Public Protector's (PP) report. That passes the accountability test. Parly is the employer body of the PP as a Ch. 9 Institution. The fact that you may not like Zuma's answers is a different matter altogether, at least he has been held to account to Parly. The PP report has a number of deficiencies in it in that it does not answer questions like: (1) Who took the money and how much; (2) where's that money; (3) If Zuma took the money where is the audit trail that traces how much he took, and into which account did the money go etc. PP report is vague, incomplete and fairly ambiguous when it comes to that. It has only served the purpose of scandalising Zuma without pinpointing when, how Zuma took the money and quantifying the money Zuma must pay back. In my opinion Parly must send this report back to PP as an incomplete, shambolic work-in-progress report.
Now for EFF to ask Zuma when he would pay back the money based on such an incomplete report of PP was a cheap shot. The money that was overspent on the Nkadla project is not in Zuma's account. The SIU has gone so many steps further than PP. They've identified and apportioned varying levels of criminal liability to certain stakeholders in their individual capacities. It makes sense that Police minister, as the custodian of the National Key Points Act, must decide first, if Zuma must pay pay and secondly, and if at all how much.
