Zuma says paying back Nkandla money ‘premature’
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has forcefully maintained that he never “dodged” Parliament when it gave a date for a question session in the House.
And he told MPs he would not pay back any money spent on his Nkandla residence until a “determination” was made on the matter.
Zuma was responding to a question by Economic Freedom Fighters MP Natasha Louw, who wanted to know if he had given thought to “targeting your machine to pay back the money”.
“Never have I ever thought on the date when I will pay back the money. Firstly, there is no money that I am going to be paying back without a determination by those who are authorised to do so, as recommended by the public protector.”
Zuma said her question was “premature” and ahead of the parliamentary process dealing with the matter.
“The public protector has not said pay back the money. The public protector has said… where (there is) undue benefit to the family or myself, she thinks this money might be paid back. But this should be determined by the minister of police.
“That determination has not been done. Why do you say I should pay back the money? You don’t even know how much,” he said, to loud applause from ruling party benches.
For months, Speaker Baleka Mbete has kicked for touch over presidential question
time, frustrating opposition parties with a standard reply that consultations with the Presidency were under way to agree on dates for Zuma’s question time in the National Assembly.
The last time Zuma was in the House to answer questions was on August 21 last year, when the session was abandoned amid the EFF’s “pay back the money” fracas.
Yesterday the opposition expected presidential question time would start where the last one ended, but this was nixed by Mbete, who is also ANC national chairwoman, citing parliamentary regulations to insist today’s programming committee would deal with this.
But the Freedom Front Plus did not mince its words. Chief whip Corne Mulder said: “The president himself denied he’s been contacted to answer questions in Parliament. Somewhere someone is misleading us… You (Mbete) are approaching the Presidency. The president is not aware of this. We have a problem.”
Subsequently FF+ MP Pieter Groenewald urged the president to settle the Nkandla security upgrades issue. “It’s a question of national importance. The only one who can answer is the honourable president. Come, let’s ask the honourable president: Are you prepared to stand up and give the answer? Let’s hear from the president, not the Presidency… Let this matter be dealt with once and for all.”
Zuma hit back forcefully, saying opposition parties had misled the country that he had avoided Parliament. He repeated his statement of August that he could not pay back any money until there was a determination by the police minister. “So, the question is premature.”
MPs were on their best behaviour, although that did not stop robust points of order and calls on Mbete to rebuke Zuma for not being quiet to allow her to take a point of order. Mbete did not do so.
Zuma laughed, and apologised, saying he had not heard the interruption.
Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy, said the question session showed politicians “got the message people are not particularly happy about turning Parliament into a circus”.
Despite the long wrangle over the Nkandla question, Zuma answered it anyway.
“There is a huge difference between a president who is playing political games with questions and one refusing to answer the questions,” said Friedman. “The system worked (yesterday).”
Political analyst Aubrey Matshiqi said even as the president decided to be “bullish” and “aggressive”, political parties clearly took a conciliatory stance. “I saw glimpses of hope that some kind of toenader
ing is possible. Which does not mean engagement will not be robust. They will continue to disagree and disagree sharply, but not be as disagreeable as they have been since the May 2014 elections. The parties may have become sensitive to the damage to their own image when Parliament descends into chaos.”
However, Matshiqi cautioned that Mbete could again be exposed to criticism that she was not applying the rules fairly for giving Zuma the benefit of the doubt that he had not heard her request to sit down for a point of order. And she had also allowed an extended interaction between the president and United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa.
It is understood there was an informal opposition caucus to strategise approaches amid a heavy security presence in Parliament from early yesterday morning. What unfolded in the Chamber showed there was agreement on avoiding the ugly scenes that characterised previous sittings, including last month’s State of the Nation address. But there was also a determined push to get answers to more than the traditional sweetheart questions from the ANC benches.
On a roll, Zuma hit back at the opposition to give his take on August 21.
“I was standing here, having not refused, having not dodged to answer questions, as you say – I was standing here and I answered two questions. The third one I answered many times. I answered. They (EFF) wanted the answer they wanted, not what I answered… Since that day, nobody has said, ‘ here’s a date to come’.”
However, he did not answer DA parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane, who asked him to give a date when he would answer the question on repaying monies spent on the R215 million Nkandla security upgrade.
“There’s been never an occasion where this has been required… Whenever Parliament says, I do come. I’ve never refused.”
Holomisa asked whether he would consider a sabbatical, given the allegations against him.
There was no reason to do so, said Zuma: “I don’t know what are those allegations… There are no investigations against me.”