Zuma didn’t steal public money, lawyer tells court
ANC legal representative says DA texts to voters spread ‘falsehood’
THE Democratic Alliance (DA) had falsely claimed, in texts to voters, that President Jacob Zuma stole public money to build his home at Nkandla, the ANC argued in the High Court in Johannesburg, yesterday.
The ANC’s counsel, Advocate Gcina Malindi SC, said last month’s report on the building of security installations at Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla by Public by Protector Thuli Madonsela, did not, in any way, state that the president stole – or make any finding on how he had stolen – from the public purse.
Sent to 1.5 million cellphone users, the DA’s text message stated: “The Nkandla report shows how Zuma stole your money to build his R246m home. Vote DA on 7 May to beat corruption. Together for change.”
The ANC has asked the court to declare that the text amounted to the publication of a false allegation.
The ANC also sought an order directing the DA to retract the text message and replace it with one that admitted the party “falsely stated that Zuma stole R246m to build his home”.
The ANC said Section 89 (2)(c) of the Electoral Act prevented the publication of any false information with the intention of influencing election outcome.
Malindi said Madonsela’s report showed ineptitude on the part of government officials involved in the Nkandla project.
“We cannot subject the electorate to consuming falsehoods which may not advance a free and fair election,” Malindi said.
Acting Judge Mike Hellens noted that although the ANC pleaded that the report did not conclude that Zuma had stolen money, the ruling party did not show what the report had found.
Advocate Ismail Jamie SC, for the DA, said the facts of the report entitled one to use the word “steal”.
“On the facts set up in the [Public Protector’s] report, the president could be guilty of misappropriation of public funds. In common parlance, he stole the public money,” Jamie said.
Judge Hellens indicated he might pass judgment tomorrow after obtaining further submissions from the two political parties on whether the court should sit as an electoral court or a high court.