JZ goes for broke to strip State Capture report of legitimacy

FRESH from surviving a motion of no-confidence in his leadership, President Zuma is turning his attention to former public protector Thuli Madonsela, accusing her of trying to frustrate the grounds for review by people affected by the State of Capture report.

Zuma has also cited the principle of separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary and the executive, insisting that Madonsela’s remedial actions fell afoul of this cornerstone of any democratic state.

“The nature of the remedial action straddles the separation of powers doctrine which is the rule of law,” Zuma has argued.

“The public protector is directing remedial action in areas which the constitution has left to the executive.”

Zuma, in an affidavit filed with the North Gauteng High Court on Friday, sought the review and setting aside of the explosive report that detailed how the president’s controversial friends, the Guptas, allegedly held influence in state-owned institutions. He also accused Madonsela of trying to take his discretionary powers away.

Zuma was responding to the State of Capture report’s remedial actions which recommended that he set up a commission of inquiry to be headed by a judge solely selected by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.

The president argued in his affidavit that this remedial action was unlawful and would result in him abdicating his powers to another person and amounted to being instructed as to when he should exercise his executive power.

“To accede to that instruction, in the remedial action, would be to abdicate my responsibility as I would be acting under dictation,” Zuma said.

“The resultant consequences would be that the establishment of that judicial inquiry, under these circumstances, would be invalid”.

An adamant Zuma argued that he “cannot be instructed by anyone as to when I should appoint a commission of inquiry or as how I should appoint such a commission of inquiry”.

The president also argued that the remedial actions of the former public protector violated the Ethics Act, the Public Protector Act, the Commissions Act and the constitution.

Zuma said that to the extent that remedial action was inconsistent with the constitution, it was invalid.

‘Invalid’

He said a commission of inquiry into the complaints of such a complex issue (state capture) might go well beyond the 30 days within which Madonsela asked the matters to be reported upon.

He asked the court to set aside the report on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the constitution and unlawful.

Madonsela told Tribune’s sister paper, The Sunday Independent, last month that taking the State of Capture report on review would not help those implicated in it.

She said the best way forward would be to find a judge, once the commission of inquiry was set up, who would preside over the commission in undoing whatever mistakes were in the current report.

“A review process is not going to do that. At worst, it would confirm that everything I did was right,” she said.

“The nature of the report to have words like ‘it appears’ was precisely because there unheard parts of evidence that needed to be heard before I could make findings.”

She said her remedial actions did not seek to interfere with the president’s power to appoint judges to head a commission of inquiry.“In the report, I explain very clearly why the process of selection is being defied; it’s really to protect the president.”