Thank you, Ben Winks! In her haste, [Mazibuko] might not have noticed that, although the report does conclude that Zuma benefited improperly from state spending on personal amenities, including an amphitheatre and swimming pool, and that Zuma misled Parliament when he denied this, it does not include the word wilfully. That is the term employed in the executive ethics code, which Zuma signed into law as acting president in 2000. This matches Mazibukos understanding that the critical word in any impeachment proceedings would be deliberately. Madonsela found, on the contrary, that Zuma made a bona fide mistake when he told Parliament he had not been enriched at public expense, and therefore he did not breach the ethics code in that respect. He was, however, found to have violated the code by failing to protect state resources, as he should have taken steps as early as December 2009 to order an immediate inquiry into the situation and immediate correction of any irregularities and excesses. These findings are reflective of the report as a whole, which reads as a horror story of endemic institutional maladministration, rather than an indictment of individual corruption on the part of the president. Mazibuko, however, had apparently already pinned her electoral colours to the corruption mast, and sought to impeach Zuma on the basis that he abuses public office for personal gain. mg.co.za/article/2014-04-03-how-not-to-impeach-a-president
Posted on: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:36:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015