'We need our money'

What has transpired in Parliament recently, has been spread out in the electronic and the published media ad infinitum.

Opinions have been expressed as to whether or not the Economic Freedom Fighters acted appropriately and or whether their actions had any bearings on the events that were being discussed at the time.

At the time when the matter was being debated, the Economic Freedom Party demanded that President Zuma, should answer the relevant questions that has been put to him, in reference to the recommendations that the Public Protector has made in her report on the upgrading and money that was spent on his private residence in Nkandla, amounting to more than R 246 million, concluding that the President should refund a substantial amount of the money to the Treasury as some of the upgrades (swimming pool or ‘fire pool’, the cattle kraal, the cost for the shirting of the spaza shop, the underground parking and amphitheatre to mention but some) that was done are not in any way security related.

The President chose to act accordingly by saying that he is referring the matter on whether or not he has to repay any of the money for decision to the Minister of the SAPS, whom incidentally report to the President and ironically also has to ‘thank’ the President for appointing him to the position of Minister.  The question that needs to be asked is how biased can the Minister be in determining the actual amount and or whether the President should be held liable to pay anything back to Treasury of the money that was spent.

Zuma and his delay tactics has become the norm rather than the exception and yet once again, he moves the goal post, which he has done on so many previous occasions. First there was the interministerial report on its investigations of what was done at Nkandla, then the Public Protectors report and then the Special Investigation Units report – all of which having its own findings, yet the conclusive and most evidentiary report being that of the Public Protector, that investigated and had the mandate to investigate the matter in terms of her duties as outlined in her Section 9 Institution responsibility.

One can rest assured that once the Minister of the SAPS has made a decision, in whatever nature it will be, that Zuma, will find a way to delay and or postpone the matter and its findings yet even further – as long as he can, even venturing to the courts, which would then act on his behalf and the legal fees conveniently being paid by the taxpayers, to not accept accountability for the money that was irregularly, unlawfully, wastefully and fruitlessly spent for the benefit of him and his extended family.

So did the EFF act appropriately in the matter – the answer is an unequivocally YES! The issue being a bone of contention and their actions being to hold the person responsible, and what they predicted would happen, did happen, and once again Zuma ‘glided’ out of this predicament, giving him more time to plan his unorthodox manner, and possibly consulting with Michael Hulley on how he could once again evade responsibility in this matter.

The EFF contributed to the extension of questioning accountability and the one that benefitted in the end none other than the President himself. “Check mate”