Whether the Public Protector’s remedial action had a legally binding effect which required the President to comply with.Whether the Constitutional Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the application by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).The President therefore did not comply with the remedial action taken by the Public Protector. After endorsing the report by the Minister exonerating the President from liability and a report to the same effect by its last Ad Hoc Committee, the National Assembly resolved to absolve the President of all liability. The National Assembly set up two Ad Hoc Committees, comprising its members, to examine the Public Protector’s report as well as other reports including the one compiled, also at its instance, by the Minister of Police. It was followed by yet another response about five months later. Having arrived at that conclusion, the Public Protector took remedial action against him in the following steps:Ī) With the assistance of the National Treasury and the SAPS (South African Police Service), to determine the reasonable cost of the measures implemented by the DPW (Department of Public Works) at his private residence that did not relate to security.ī) To pay a reasonable percentage of the cost of the measures as determined with the assistance of the National Treasury, also considering the DPW apportionment document.Ĭ) To reprimand the Ministers involved for the appalling manner in which the Nkandla Project was handled and state funds were abused.ĭ) To report to the National Assembly on his comments and actions on the report within 14 days.Ĭonsistent with this directive, the President submitted his response to the National Assembly within 14 days of receiving the report. In reasoning her way to the findings, the Public Protector found that the President acted in breach of his constitutional obligations in terms of section 96(1), (2)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, Executive Members’ Ethics Act 1998 and the Executive Ethics Code 2007. Since the State was in that instance under an obligation only to provide security for the President at his private residence, any installation that had nothing to do with the President’s security amounted to undue benefit or unlawful enrichment to him and his family and had to therefore be paid for by him. The Public Protector concluded that several improvements at the said residence a cattle kraal, chicken run, swimming pool, amphitheatre and a visitors’ centre were non-security features. That triggered a fairly extensive investigation by the Public Protector into the Nkandla project. Several South Africans, including a Member of Parliament, lodged complaints with the Public Protector concerning aspects of the security upgrades that were being effected at the President’s Nkandla private residence. Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Bosielo AJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Nkabinde J and Zondo J Remedial Action taken against a President for Breach of his Constitutional Obligations is Legally Binding.Įconomic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |