Publications
Partners
Johannesburg - The EFF welcomed the Constitutional Court's decision to allow the Public Protector to join its bid to have President Jacob Zuma repay some of the money spent on Nkandla.
This would give Thuli Madonsela the opportunity to clarify her powers in relation to the office of the president and allow her to explain her remedial action against Zuma, spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said in a statement.
"This decision is significant because the powers of the Public Protector have been ridiculed and challenged by many in government, including by Zuma himself.
"This case will restore the dignity and respectability to the office of the Public Protector because many who steal and abuse state resources in government no longer hold the work of the Public Protector in high esteem because they think that they can get away with it like Zuma."
The EFF wanted the Constitutional Court to compel Zuma to implement Madonsela's recommendations. The court was expected to hear the matter in February.
In her report, entitled Secure in Comfort released in March last year, Madonsela recommended that Zuma repay a reasonable amount of the R246m spent on upgrades to his Nkandla homestead not related to security, like the swimming pool, cattle kraal, and amphitheatre.
Remedial powers
On Tuesday, the Constitutional Court ordered that Madonsela would be joined to the matter as a third respondent, and that she had to file papers on or before October 30.
She had argued that the court’s ruling in the Economic Freedom Fighters' case would profoundly affect how her office exercised its power, as a recent high court ruling had “severely compromised” it.
Western Cape High Court Judge Ashton Schippers ruled on October 24, 2014 that the Public Protector’s findings and recommendations were not binding and enforceable. He, however, said a definite ruling was needed on the Public Protector’s powers and remedial action.
Schippers said this in his ruling that SABC chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng be suspended pending a disciplinary hearing against him.
Madonsela said the ruling had become the prevailing law on the matter and it had “detrimentally impacted” her office.
