Nkandla: Zuma, Nhleko, Mbete were wrong to establish parallel processes
16 November 2015
In a replying affidavit filed in the Constitutional Court, the Democratic Alliance (DA) contends that the establishment of parallel investigative processes by the President, Speaker of the National Assembly as well as the Minister of Police were inconsistent with established legal precedent as determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
These parallel processes spawned various other reports, which were aimed at displacing the Public Protector’s “Secure in Comfort” report and allowed President Jacob Zuma to avoid giving effect to the Public Protector’s remedial action and essentially get off scot free.
The SCA had determined earlier this year, in the Democratic Alliance v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others mater, that “an individual or body affected by any finding, decision or remedial action taken by the Public Protector is not entitled to embark on a parallel investigation process to the of the Public Protector, and adopt the position that the outcome of that parallel process trumps the findings taken by the Public Protector.”