Public Protector's report: The questions MPs are prevented from asking the President

The Public Protector's report on the SAPS Durban lease deal has been taken off the agenda for tomorrow's session of oral questions to the President. This has denied MPs the opportunity to interrogate President Zuma about why, 60 days after Advocate Madonsela's report was released, he has yet to act on its recommendations.

National Assembly rules dictate that parliamentary questions cannot be asked about matters before portfolio committees. This rule therefore applies to the Public Protector's report, which is currently before the police and public works portfolio committees.

That the President will not be addressing the Public Protector's report in Parliament tomorrow is a serious blow to Parliament's ability to hold the executive to account. The Democratic Alliance's (DA's) representatives on the two committees considering the report will take all necessary steps to ensure that the report, and this administration's response to its recommendations, is thoroughly interrogated.

The removal of the Public Protector's report from tomorrow's agenda  has once again denied the South African public the chance to hear an explanation for the involvement of senior government officials in the SAPS lease scandal. So far, the National Police Commissioner has cancelled two press conferences on the Public Protector's report, and the Minister of Public Works has dodged two scheduled appearances before the public works portfolio committee to explain her involvement in the lease deals. President Zuma has thus far only once broken  his silence on the deals - to distance himself from controversial businessman Roux Shabangu, who owned the buildings involved in the lease deals saga.

Had MPs not been prevented from interrogating the President tomorrow on the Public Protector's report, I would have asked the following questions:

·         Why has the President not taken decisive action against the Minister of Public Works and the National Police Commissioner for their proven misconduct in the procurement of the dodgy SAPS lease deals?

·         Why did the President send his response to the Public Protector's reports to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Max Sisulu, rather than to the Public Protector herself?

·         Why did the President's response sent to the Speaker focus on procedural issues, rather than the misconduct of those individuals found to have been responsible for the dodgy lease deals?

·         Why did the President say that action would only be taken on "some" of the Public Protector's recommendations?

·         Why did Cabinet reject the Public Protector's recommendation that the Minister of Public Works should report to it on her actions in relation to the two SAPS lease deals and her failure to fully cooperate with the Public Protector in connection with the investigation into these deals?

The DA will ensure that the President fully accounts for the manner in which he responds to the Public Protector's report. As soon as this report has been considered by the public works and police portfolio committees and the question embargo has been lifted, I will submit the questions above in writing to President Zuma.

Last Thursday, Cabinet spin doctor Jimmy Manyi said that the Public Protector's report is not a Cabinet issue, but an issue that the President must manage with the minister involved. It seems that, in the eyes of Cabinet, on the matter of the Public Protector's report, all roads lead to the President. In the eyes of the South African people, they do too. President Zuma's handling of the Public Protector's recommendations will send a powerful signal to South Africans about this administration's regard for accountability, and its respect for the authority and mandate of the Public Protector's Office. 

Statement issued by Athol Trollip MP, DA parliamentary leader, September 12 2011

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