PUBLIC PROTECTOR'S LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
24 August 2012
The Office of the ANC Chief Whip has noted with disappointment the letter of the Public Protector reportedly sent to the President regarding his report on the security upgrades at his Nkandla private residence. The report is currently before Parliament and an ad hoc committee has been established to consider it and make recommendations for adoption by the House (see City Press report).
The report of the President to Parliament takes into consideration all key reports relating to the security upgrades, including that of the Public Protector titled "Secure in Comfort". In responding to the report of the Public Protector, the Executive Members Ethics Act of 1998 directs that the President must submit a report to Parliament, not to the Public Protector's office, for its consideration. The provisions of this Act are firmly in line with the Constitution in which the President and the executive are expected to account to Parliament.
The Public Protector herself, in her statement widely covered in the media on Tuesday, confirmed this common constitutional comprehension when she stated that 'it was now up to Parliament to weigh President Jacob Zuma's response to the findings on public spending on his private Nkandla home'. She said: "It is not for me to be satisfied, really it is not my place...The next part actually is for Parliament to evaluate, not me."
The letter of the Public Protector to the President, in which she takes issue with the President's report and sets a dateline for him to respond, is inexplicable in the light of her stated position last week. It is difficult therefore to reconcile her statement that she would leave it to Parliament, not her office, to "evaluate" the President's response with the contents of her letter to the President. This complete somersault between the Public Prorector's position on the 20 August and her position articulated in her letter at the close of business on 21 August suggests a desperate attempt to dictate terms to Parliament rather than respect Parliamentary processes and its constitutional authority.