Bid to restore Nxasana
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma at first tried to bully former head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Mxolisi Nxasana out of office by appointing a commission of inquiry into his fitness to hold office. Then he tried to “seduce” him with money.
This is according to Advocate Wim Trengove SC, who argued yesterday for the reinstatement of Nxasana as NPA head.
NGOs Corruption Watch, Freedom Under Law and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution are challenging Nxasana’s “resignation” or departure from the NPA in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.
The applicants want the court to set aside the 2015 settlement agreement between Nxasana and Zuma, in terms of which he vacated his office. They want him to step into the shoes of present NPA boss Shaun Abrahams.
They also want the R17 mil- lion golden handshake to be set aside and they have asked that Nxasana be ordered to pay back the money.
The NGOs further challenged the power of the president, in terms of the NPA Act, to suspend the national director of public prosecutions and deputy national directors unilaterally, indefinitely and without pay.
It was argued in this regard that Zuma stood to face serious criminal charges and that there was a conflict between his personal interests and appointing the prosecuting head. The battle of who should lead the NPA and the question as to whether Zuma was behind Nxasana stepping down and receiving the golden handshake is expected to last three days.
Advocate Matthew Chaskalson, acting on behalf of one of the NGOs, argued that once the removal of Nxasana was declared unconstitutional by the court, the appointment of Abrahams should be declared null and void.
This caused Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, who is heading the full bench hearing the application, to question whether this would not cause Abrahams to then be the victim of “an unlawful decision”.
Zuma did not oppose the relief that Nxasana repay the R17m, but he maintained that he could not return to office as he insisted that he was asked to step down as NPA boss and not made to resign.
Zuma claimed that Nxasana, during meetings with him, asked to vacate his office, as the NPA was rendered dysfunctional and because he did not see eye to eye with senior leadership within the office.
Zuma said he deemed these reasons as sufficient to allow Nxasana to vacate his office in terms of the NPA Act. It was said that Nxasana insisted on receiving his full benefits for the remainder of his 10-year term and that the parties at the end settled the matter.
The court heard that there were a series of settlement negotiations between Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley, and Nxasana and that the offer was R10.5m. The matter was, in the end, settled at R17m.
Nxasana, who attended yesterday’s hearing, denied he was requested by Zuma to leave office. “I did not feel compelled to make such a request since I have, at all times, considered myself to be fit and proper to hold office,” he said.
He maintained that there were politically motivated reasons why his fitness to hold office was publicly questioned by some senior officials in his office. This included the concern that he would reinstate fraud and racketeering charges against Zuma.
He said he believed that controversial advocates Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi were behind rumours that he intended to reinstate the criminal charges.
Following this, Zuma informed him that he had decided to institute an inquiry into his (Nxasana’s) fitness to hold office and that he intended to suspend him without pay, pending the outcome of the inquiry.
The commission was established a few months later, but nothing came of it as Zuma, on the eve of it commencing, halted it.
This was a day after Nxasana had signed the settlement agreement in terms of which he took his golden handshake.
Trengove, acting for some of the NGOs, argued that the inquiry was a threat made to Nxasana for him to resign, but the president did not need to go ahead with it once he and Nxasana had reached the settlement agreement.
(Proceeding)