TODAY'S MEETING THE PARLIAMENTARY AD HOC COMMITTEE

26 September 2014

The Office of the ANC Chief Whip reaffirms the original mandate of the parliamentary ad hoc committee set up to consider the report of the President in response to reports of various institutions on their investigations into the Nkandla security upgrades. In considering the reports, the ad hoc committee was expected to conduct a qualitative interrogation, robust analysis and thorough appraisement of the reports and formulate an opinion for the National Assembly's consideration.

The committee was neither called to re-investigate nor to review the findings of the reports. As we have repeatedly stated, all the reports comprehensively uncovers deep-seated maladministration, cost inflation and general corruption in the installation of security upgrades at the President's private residence. Indeed all parties in the committee agree that those responsible must face the full might of the law. In this regard, the Special Investigative Unit report paints a commendable picture that steps are underway to recoup the wasted funds and prosecute those responsible.

It remains the view of the ANC that all reports before the committee provide sufficient information to enable Parliament to form an opinion. While the committee is empowered in terms of the rules to summon individuals to appear before it for questioning, this would have meant a rehash of the investigation which would have warranted an alteration of the findings of the reports.

Were individuals mentioned in the reports called to testify before the committee, a legitimate expectation would have been created that their testimonies, which may either agree or materially contest the reports, should be taken into account when the committee reports. This would have unavoidably compelled Parliament to review the reports, which is in conflict with the institution's constitutional powers. In this regard, the ANC cautioned against opening the re-investigation process that would have thrown the institution into a legally untenable situation.

It was clear from the onset that the opposition's desire was never to participate in the committee process in good faith with a view to assist Parliament to arrive at sound resolutions on the matter. The opposition's main and rigid mission, which it canvassed even before the ad hoc committee could be established or they could see the reports, was to abuse the committee to pursue its relentless and obsessive anti-President Zuma campaign. The opposition have campaigned ceaselessly that the President must appear before the committee, but they have not provided compelling and legitimate cause for such appearance.

It is worth noting again that, in her report, the Public Protector did not find the President guilty of any crime regarding the security upgrades. The Public Protector's report was clear that:

- The State has not spent any money on the private residence of the President in Nkandla

- The President did not mislead Parliament

- There was no political interference in the implementation of the Prestige Project

- The State did not pay for the improvement in the dwellings of the brothers of President Jacob Zuma

Unfortunately, all that we have heard from the opposition during the last few weeks of the committee's existence is its often-repeated mantra that the President must be hauled before the committee to "pay back the money".

This mantra flies in the face of the legitimate process which the President has initiated in line with the report of the Public Protector. The Public Protector has stated that the SAPS must determine which non-security upgrades should be paid for by the President. In this regard, the President has tasked the Minister of Police, who is responsible for the SAPS, to deal with matter.

Asking the President to appear before the committee to give details of how, when and how much he should pay, even before the Police Minister can conclude his process, is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. It is also intended to undermine and usurp the valid process which the Minister of Police is seized with. The President should not be hoodwinked into undermining the processes set out by the Public Protector by being asked to be a law unto himself, where he is made to judge his own matter.

The opposition has alleged that the President has not responded to some questions posed to him by the Public Protector and therefore should come to respond to those question before the ad hoc committee. It is this very insistence to reopen or extend the investigative process, which the Public Protector has thoroughly conducted and concluded, against which we have repeatedly cautioned.

The question which the opposition fails to answer is, were such further investigation or interview to be conducted, what would the committee do with its outcomes? Would the committee use such information to amend the report? Parliament may not invite people to appear before it merely for a chat and thereafter ignore or disregard their submissions in its report.

In conclusion, we wish to state that it is regrettable that the parties in the committee have not been able to reach a consensus on these important matters. As the ruling party, we have sought to submit valid argument to enable Parliament to resolve the matter and avoided using our majority as a means for deadlock-breaking mechanism as allowed in our constitutional democratic system.

It is in this vein that we find it gravely unfortunate that when we disagree, or are unable to persuade one another, the opposition tend to play a helpless victim, throws toys out of the cot and walks out. We are also disturbed by the levels of insults, labelling and intolerance which have once again reared their ugly head particularly in today's session.

As the Majority Party, we cannot allow a situation in which we accede to opposition views simply because of intimidation or threats that they would walk out. Walkouts or boycotting of parliamentary process can never be a replacement for meaningful and qualitative engagement.

As the majority party, our door remains open for further engagement with a view to find one another on these issues. Indeed the work of the ad hoc committee continues.

Statement issued by the ANC in Parliament, September 26 2014

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