There we go again It said that the procedures adopted by Madonsela had not complied with the principles of natural justice. She had not applied the procedures outlined in Section 7 (4) (a) of the Public Protector Act, by making findings based on a telephonic interview and on interviews and documents obtained from the Mail and Guardian website. It said Mandonsela was wrong to say Zuma should pay back a “reasonable percentage’’ of the expenditure, when she had not yet determined by how much Zuma had allegedly benefited. “The report finds that the President benefited from the improvements that were made to his home but fails to state the value of the benefit. The reason why she failed to put a figure on the value of the alleged benefit is a typical example of the failure to properly investigate and make a finding based on facts,’’ it said.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 22:02:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015