‘Wrong advice’ but Zuma stands by legal adviser
STILL ON STAFF: President Jacob Zuma and his special legal adviser, Michael Hulley PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has refused to fire his special legal adviser, Michael Hulley, despite calls from top ANC leaders for him to do so.
The Sunday Times understands that ANC national executive committee members called for Hulley to be axed at the extended national working committee meeting in Cape Town on Monday.
But the president refused to fire Hulley, whose legal advice costs taxpayers R1.6-million a year for his retainer and an additional R800 an hour for work done for Zuma.
There appears to be a push by some ANC leaders for a complete overhaul of Zuma’s advisory capacity in his office.
This was after Zuma said in his apology following the Constitutional Court judgment that he had acted on wrong legal advice.
While the ANC accepted the president’s apology, party leaders debated what should happen as a result of the judgment.
Presidency spokesman Bongani Majola would not say whether Hulley would lose his job in light of Zuma’s apology.
“Michael Hulley is the legal adviser to the president and therefore part of the Presidency staff,” he said in an SMS to the Sunday Times.
Hulley could not be reached for comment.
An insider said ANC leaders had called for there to be consequences for those who wrongly advised Zuma. Zuma apparently defended his advisers.
This source said the ANC was often left embarrassed after Zuma had acted on wrong legal advice.
The same concerns were said to have been raised by party MPs at a caucus meeting on Tuesday.
The Sunday Times understands that senior backbencher and former cabinet minister Charles Nqakula spoke up in the caucus on behalf of those who had concerns about the matter, and was joined by other MPs.
The lengthy special caucus meeting was addressed by ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe.
MPs who attended the meeting said Mantashe communicated the national working committee position and presented a report after members raised concerns about the ruling’s implications.
Nqakula was the first to raise concerns about the way the Nkandla matter was handled.
“He was not the only one. There were many others. Look, the caucus dealt with this . . . But the problem seems to be focused on an individual, the president, and not the actual system,” said one long-serving MP.
Attempts to reach Nqakula for comment were unsuccessful.
In the unanimous Constitutional Court judgment, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said Zuma “might have been following wrong legal advice and therefore acting in good faith. But that does not detract from the illegality of his conduct.”
Initially, in responding to the EFF’s court case, Zuma had argued that he was “entitled to differ with the findings and recommendations of the public protector on cogent grounds”.
Mogoeng noted in his judgment that only eight days before the Constitutional Court case was heard did Zuma concede the powers of the public protector and agree to pay back a portion of the state funds spent on upgrading his home.
The Sunday Times revealed at the time that Zuma’s legal U-turn was a result of the intervention of Advocate Jeremy Gauntlett SC — who came with a price tag of
The source said the ANC was often left embarrassed after Zuma acted on wrong legal advice
R50 000 a day plus VAT. It is estimated that Gauntlett’s involvement in the case cost taxpayers more than R1-million.
In addition to this, the Constitutional Court bid to compel the president to pay back the money is likely to cost taxpayers close to R5-million just to settle the legal costs of the EFF, DA and public protector.
Mogoeng ordered that the Presidency, parliament and the Police Ministry pay the legal costs for the two political parties and the public protector, including the fees of two senior counsel.
The EFF, which began working on the bid in July last year, will bill the state at least R1.5-million. EFF attorney Luvuyo Godla said the legal costs incurred by the EFF would be exorbitant.
“We were sent from pillar to post just to serve the papers . . . this cost us,” said Godla.
The DA’s James Selfe said the estimated costs for its part in the court action would between R1.2-million and R1.5-million.
The public protector’s office did not have their information immediately available.