Speaker rejects DA’s Nkandla legal challenges
CAPE TOWN — The speaker of the National Assembly, Baleka Mbete, has rejected two legal challenges by the Democratic Alliance (DA) to resolutions of the House pertaining to the application of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on Nkandla.
The public protector’s remedial action required President Jacob Zuma to pay back a portion of the money spent on nonsecurity upgrades at his home in Nkandla.
In two separate applications to the Constitutional Court, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) is asking the court to order Mr Zuma to repay some of the money as instructed by Ms Madonsela.
The DA is seeking to have the decisions of Parliament empowering the police minister to rule on the matter of repayment and the subsequent resolution that there was no obligation on Mr Zuma to repay any money declared unlawful and invalid.
The speaker has urged the Constitutional Court to rule against the DA’s challenges, which she described as unlawful and invalid.
Ms Mbete’s response to the Constitutional Court comes hard on the heels of reports that Mr Zuma has agreed to repay some of the money. This is contained in his written submissions to the court.
Central to the speaker’s response to the DA’s affidavits is that there is nothing in the Constitution or the law that compels the National Assembly to implement the remedial action ordered by Ms Madonsela.
The affidavit from then acting speaker Lechesa Tsenoli says the DA erred in law, because the Constitution confers oversight powers on the National Assembly and not on Parliament.
The DA application — which targets Parliament and not the National Assembly on its own — would thus be “incompetent” because it would also bind the National Council of Provinces.
The legal challenges against Nkandla gained a boost in the Supreme Court of Appeal, which ruled that Ms Madonsela’s remedial action could be reviewed only in a court of law.
The Constitutional Court will hear the matter in February.
Mr Zuma said in his papers to the court that he had never indicated an unwillingness to pay once a reasonable portion of the reasonable costs of specific items had been determined. However, he did not indicate whether or not he had asked for the bill.
Last month, the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution entered the fray, becoming the fourth organisation hoping that the highest court will hear the Nkandla dispute, despite the matter not having been heard by any lower court.