The party says after taking legal advice, they have decided to proceed with presenting their Heads of Argument before the Constitutional Court scheduled for Tuesday, 09 February 2016. In so doing the party will be seeking the relief outlined in their Notice Of Motion.
The DA reacted to the so-called “settlement offer” made by Zuma “but contends that the contents of his settlement offer do not comply with the remedial actions as ordered by the Public Protector in her report entitled Secure in Comfort. In fact, we contend that the President designating the Auditor-General (A-G) to come to a determination as to how much he is liable is the latest attempt to establish a parallel process, for a fifth time”.
In a statement released on Tuesday night, Zuma proposed the amount he’s should pay back for the controversial renovations at his private home at Nkandla should be “independently determined by the Auditor-General and minister of finance”.
But DA leader Mmusi Maimane said at a press conference 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 or Parliament on whether he was liable for any of the costs was illegal and unconstitutional. Legal precedent at present, as established by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), is very clear that ‘an individual or body affected by any finding, decision or remedial action taken by the Public Protector is not entitled to embark on a parallel investigation process to the of the Public Protector, and adopt the position that the outcome of that parallel process trumps the findings taken by the Public Protector’.”
The DA also states that should Zuma seek to challenge the findings and remedial actions of the Public Protector he should do so by way of a review application in a court of law. The President to date has not done so; he has instead frustrated the work of the Public Protector by way of erecting parallel processes, which have no legal basis.
The party says 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 our constitutional democracy. That is why the Democratic Alliance (DA) took the SABC and the Minister of Communications to court when they disregarded the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector to suspend Mr Hlaudi Motsoeneng, and to institute disciplinary proceedings against him.
“It is clear that the President Zuma has deployed a contingent of Ministers and ANC Members of Parliament to defend the indefensible act of constructing a palace at the expense of the people of the Republic. Those doing the President’s bidding have even gone as far as ignoring Court judgements in order drive a political agenda, despite swearing in their oath of office to uphold the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the Republic. Now before the highest Court in the land, we are confident that the Constitutional Court will bring the Nkandla matter to its logical conclusion by determining that President Zuma do what the Secure in Comfort report by the Public Protector ordered; which is that he pay back a reasonable percentage of the costs of the non-security upgrades to his private residence.
“For too long President Zuma and the ANC have abdicated their responsibility to uphold the Rule of the Law and the Constitution, but have done everything to undermine to the work of the Public Protector and the Constitution.
“The Constitutional Court will, on Tuesday, consider this matter in order to provide legal certainty about the Public Protector’s powers. The law has been developed in some degree in the Schippers judgment, confirmed by the SCA and that the Constitutional Court will rule definitively on the matter.”
Are we looking forward to the case? Of course we are!