This has emerged in Zumas reply to public protector Thuli Madonselas scathing letter on the matter, which has earned her the wrath of the ruling party. Zuma said he disagreed with Madonselas assertion that her findings were not subject to any review or second-guessing by a minister or cabinet. He said Madonselas findings were not court judgments to be followed under [the] pain of a contempt order but, rather, useful tools in assisting democracy in a cooperative manner, sometimes rather forcefully. In her letter sent to Zuma last month, Madonsela slated the president for failure to adequately respond to her Secure in Comfort report that he benefited unduly from the upgrades. She also criticised Zuma for opening up her findings to second-guessing by saying Nhleko should decide whether he must pay. Regarding w hether or not I am liable for any repayments, I should not be a judge in my own case unless and to the degree I am institutionally compelled, Zuma wrote to Madonsela yesterday. I consider the minister of police to be the appropriate functionary for the purpose and reasons tendered in my report to the National Assembly, he said. Zuma said it would be irrational to rubber-stamp the findings without applying his mind. Zuma said he was awaiting completion of a parliament ad hoc committees process and urged Madonsela to do the same. Madonsela has confirmed receiving the letter. Presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj was asked why Zuma did not mention that the Treasury should be part of the team to determine the amount he must pay back. Maharaj said the matter was for parliament to debate and not for journalists and dropped the phone. Zumas latest response is likely to further spark outrage among a public demanding that the president pays back taxpayer money spent on his private home.
Posted on: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:50:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015