STATEMENT OF THE ANC PARLIAMENTARY CAUCUS ON THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR'S REPORT AND CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT

26 March 2014

1. DA's Nkandla Manifesto

The Office of the ANC Chief Whip notes the outcome of the Public Protector's report into Security Upgrades on the President's Residence at Inkandla in KwaZulu-Natal, and the DA's subsequent request for the establishment of the parliamentary ad hoc committee to consider an impeachment motion against the President. 

The DA's motion is clearly without basis. It is purely election time posturing aimed at grabbing media attention with a hope that it would assist its chances in this election. Having finally realised that it has the weakest election manifesto and has therefore nothing to offer to the electorate, it has opted to replace its election manifesto with the Nkandla Manifesto. The aim of the Nkandla Manifesto is to propagate falsehoods (as seen in their SMS) and to mislead the public (as evidenced by its impeachment attempt).

It is clear that the DA's statement following the release of the Public Protector's report had been written long before the release of the final report. The DA statement is based on the leaked draft report, and has therefore been overtaken by events. The statement is illustrative of a party at odds with reality and is clutching at straws. The DA had pinned its hopes on the Public Protector coming like a Messiah to rescue its election campaign.

The DA had hoped that the Public Protector would find that the President had misled the National Assembly when he said he, not the state, built his home. But the Public Protector found otherwise. The party had hoped the Public Protector would find political interference by the President in the implementation of the upgrades, but she didn't find so. It had hoped the Public Protector would find the President had personally solicited the upgrades or acted corruptly. However, such did not happen. Also, the party had hoped that the Public Protector would find that the State had paid for the renovations at the dwellings of the President's brothers. Indeed no such finding was made.

Instead, the report mostly echoed the report of the Inter-Ministerial Team with regard to the findings on the commission of serious irregularities in the implementation of the project. These irregularities are currently the subject of the SIU investigation instructed by the President.

All these facts make the DA's basis for the impeachment motion nonsensical.

2. Established Parliamentary process

The DA's request for the tabling of a motion of this nature in parliament at this stage is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. 

This is because in terms of the Public Protector Act of 1994, the Public Protector is accountable to Parliament and therefore his/her reports must be submitted to the institution. In terms of the National Assembly Rule 302, the Speaker must upon receipt of the report table it without delay to enable all members of the National Assembly to formally have it before them.

The tabling is done in the parliamentary papers (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports document). The Rules prescribe that the Speaker must refer the report to an appropriate committee(s) for consideration and report to the House. The emphasis should be made here that the tabling of the report does not necessitate a sitting of the House. The House only convenes after the finalisation of the committee process on the report in order to consider the committee's report. 

The House would then be guided by the committee report in terms of how the matter must be dealt with. It is naïveté or a flawed comprehension of simple, established procedure and the law for anyone to ask Parliament to simply form a committee to consider impeachment before it could even deal with the report through a thorough parliamentary process.

It is important to note that at this point, the National Assembly has not even received This time-honoured procedure is important. It would be very clumsy for Parliament to entertain an impeachment motion on the basis of one political party's skewed interpretation of the Public Protector's report. According to the DA's interpretation of the Public Protector's report, which is evidenced by the SMS it sent to the public, the President "stole R246million to build his house" in Nkandla.

It goes without saying this claim is dirty electioneering, it is defamatory, and is not factual. It would be absolutely unthinkable for a constitutional institution such as Parliament to initiate proceedings against a sitting President on the basis of one party's faulty opinion on a report of a Chapter 9 institution. Similarly, it is extremely arrogant of such a party to seek to impose its own and self-serving interpretation of the report on the rest of the institution for a decision.

The outcome of a thorough parliamentary deliberation on the Public Protector's report, not the DA's opinion, must be the one that informs the decision of the institution.

3. Concern regarding the Public Protector's remarks

As the Majority Party in this institution, we reaffirm our complete support for all state institutions supporting our constitutional democracy, including the Public Protector. We are satisfied with the work of the Public Protector, which has over the years played an important role in supporting our government`s efforts in the fight against malfeasance and corruption and strengthened good governance, accountability and transparency. 

Our disagreement with, and praise of, the Public Protector over the years has been, and continues to be, motivated by nothing except our desire for a strong and politically independent chapter 9 institution that conducts its work strictly in terms of the Act and the Constitution. It is for this reason that we express our concern at certain utterances she directed at the government and Parliament, which borders on political posturing and condescending language.

Following the release of her report, the Public Protector disdainfully referred to the Inter-Ministerial Task Team which investigated the upgrades as a ‘little committee of Ministers'. She has also spoken condescendingly of Parliament, a constitutional institution that she is accountable to, by questioning its independence and suggesting that some of its powers - such as the power to appoint and remove the President - must be clipped. The Public Protector has also made some remarks relating to the agenda of the ANC National Executive Committee scheduled for this weekend, saying she would be "surprised" if the committee did not deliberate on her report.

All these remarks contain political overtones that are unacceptable coming from the head of an independent chapter 9 institution. By making such disparaging remarks against the two arms of the state and the internal political processes of a political party, we strongly believe that she has overstepped the mark.

We are aware that our detractors and blind loyalists alike would be quick to conveniently accuse us of attacking the Public Protector. However, as the majority party in this Parliament we will never shy away from speaking out in defence of the Constitution and its sacrosanct principles. 

Statement issued by the Office of the ANC Chief Whip, March 26 2014

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