Parliament must investigate interference in Public Protector's Nkandla investigation

13 November 2013

The opposing Affidavit filed by the Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela today, is further evidence of attempts taken by several Ministers in the Security Cluster to interfere in the independence of her office, and put political pressure on her to stop her investigation into the security upgrades at President Zuma's private residence in Nkandla.

The opposing Affidavit states that:

1. There was resistance to the investigation into the Nkandla project from the outset, "premised on suggested concerns regarding the impact which the release of the report might have on the President's security";
2. It was "hinted" that there were security risks associated with the investigation;
3. There were separate attempts by the Minister of Police, and thereafter collectively, the Ministers of Police, Public Works and State Security to stop the investigation;
4. In a latter attempt, it was mooted that the investigation should be suspended pending the outcome of investigations by the Auditor-General and Special Investigating Unit, despite the fact that neither of these investigations have commenced.
5. The claims that the report contains security breaches is rebutted by the fact that the President's privately appointed architect, and who oversaw the entire project on behalf of the Department of Public Works, had no security clearance.
6. The process embarked upon by the Ministers in taking the matter to court delays the finalisation of the report.

Following initial reports that there had been interference in the work of the Public Protector, I immediately submitted parliamentary questions to the Ministers of Justice and Constitutional Development, Police, State Security and Public Works asking whether they had requested that the Public Protector not continue with her investigation. The answers were as follows:

• The Minister of Public Works said ‘no'
• The Minister of Police did not answer the relevant subsection
• The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development said that "Ministers view the work of the Public Protector as that of a constitutionally established institution that should be respected and would never attempt to undermine and interfere with"
• The Minister of State Security said ‘no'
• The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans refused to answer, and referred all questions to the Public Protector.
• The Minister of Public Works and the Minister of State Security have therefore misled Parliament. This is a most serious offence. 

These replies also shed light on the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development. The former clearly ignored the question and he should be asked to explain why, as he is accountable to Parliament. The latter is the head of the cluster and was aware of the meetings. Given this fact, he could possibly have also misled Parliament through his response.

The Public Protector's affidavit also brings into question whether President Zuma also misled Parliament. Indeed, if he is not aware of the details of the upgrade, and it was effectively thrust upon him, how does he explain the use of his own private architect, paid for by the Department of Public Works, for this project?

Parliament must now act. I will immediately consult with the Office of the Speaker of the National Assembly to ascertain whether, in light of the court action, I am in a position to table a substantive motion against the Ministers in question. Should this not be possible in terms of the Rules, I will do so as soon as the court case is resolved. 

A full investigation into misleading Parliament and interfering in the work of the Public Protector must be initiated, and if the Ministers, and indeed the President, are found guilty - they must be removed from their respective offices.

Statement issued by Lindiwe Mazibuko MP, DA Parliamentary Leader, November 13 2013

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter