Full probe into Nkandla needed, Concourt told
IN a scathing indictment on the effectiveness of parliamentary questions‚ UDM advocate Dali Mpofu argued before the Constitutional Court that a parliamentary inquiry was needed into the Nkandla matter.
Mpofu argued that the 27 question-andanswer sessions with President Jacob Zuma on Nkandla had not yielded genuine answers from him.
The EFF‚ the UDM‚ COPE and the DA are asking the Constitutional Court to force parliament to start impeachment proceedings and set up a committee to grill Zuma on whether he had misled parliament on Nkandla.
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng wanted to know whether after 27 question-and-answer sessions‚ an official parliamentary inquiry was still needed into Zuma’s violations when using state money to renovate his private Nkandla home.
“You believe the truth will be told this time around?” he asked.
Mpofu said: “What happens in a Q&A is the direct opposite of what the constitution describes as ‘scrutinise’.
“There is no opportunity to scrutinise. Those [Q&A] sessions are in this respect deficient.”
If the EFF and other parties are successful in their court application‚ a subcommittee of members of various political parties would be set up to question Zuma under oath on Nkandla and perhaps organise an impeachment vote.
Both EFF advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi and UDM advocate Mpofu presented their cases to the court for a full two hours‚ longer than the usual one hour each.
Constitutional Court Judge Leona Theron appeared to nod off during the case, much to Twitter users’ fury.
But questions from Mogoeng‚ Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and Judge Jody Kollapen were unrelenting.
They grilled both advocates about why the court needed to get involved in parliamentary processes‚ due to the separation of powers doctrine in South African law.
They wanted to know from Mpofu why a fact-finding inquiry was needed to investigate Zuma’s offences after the Constitutional Court’s Nkandla judgment and the public protector’s extensive report revealed the details.
Mpofu suggested that the inquiry was a way to get Zuma to answer questions about Nkandla under oath as the beginning of an impeachment process‚ rather than a new investigation into the facts of Nkandla spending.
He argued that an inquiry would give a fair trial for Zuma before an impeachment vote.
He said Speaker Baleka Mbete should have set up a parliamentary inquiry into Zuma’s violations of the constitution in her role as leader of parliament.
“The speaker is not a mere class monitor of the National Assembly. She plays a role of crucial importance.”
The judges wanted to know whether all the processes of parliament to hold Zuma to account had been used‚ before the court was asked to involve itself in parliamentary matters.
The speaker is not a mere class monitor of the National Assembly