Madonsela and Security Cluster Battle not Over


By PAW    15-Nov-2013 15:18 UTC+02:00
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela visited President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home as part of her investigation. – image - www.iol.co.za

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela. – image – www.iol.co.za

It looks like the battle is not over for public protector, Thuli Madonsela. The security cluster does not intend to be scared by the public protector’s latest announcement and seem to have come out with both barrels blazing.

After her recent public announcements to the effect that several ministries in the security cluster had tried to close down her investigation, and that she did not see any security breach in her report, the minister of police has come out in defence of his fellow ministries, adding that she was not an expert on the subject of security and could not make that call.

This was contained in a court affidavit that was released by Madonsela’s office on Thursday afternoon and it had been filed by the security cluster(the ministries of defence, police, state security and public works) at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.

The big bone of contention is the report that the office of the public protector is due to release on the now notorious upgrade to President Jacob Zuma’s residence at Nkandla, in KwaZulu-Natal.

According to the affidavit, the State did not obstruct Public Protector’s  investigation into upgrades to the president’s residence at all and it further states that they have no desire to dictate to Madonsela’s office when and how to release their provisional report. They further argue that the allegations she makes that her investigation team was obstructed and frustrated were wide off the mark.

The report on the R206m upgrade to President Zuma’s Nkandla residence was given to the security cluster at the beginning of November apparently following a special request for access prior to other interested parties. However, the cluster of security ministries disputes this, arguing that this was in fact at the suggestion of Thuli Madonsela’s office itself. This advance viewing privilege was meant for the ministries to assess whether the report did not compromise the President’s security.

The problem came to a head on Friday when the security cluster filed an urgent application to prevent Madonsela from releasing the report. The State’s application was set down to be heard by the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on Friday. In this affidavit, the ministries argue that they are mandated by the Constitution  to ensure the security of the Presidency and the country and would not relegate that responsibility to the Public Protector who was not an expert on these matters. They further contend that their interest could not be interpreted as interference in the office of Madonsela.


Comments



Showing 3 Comments
Any thoughts? Leave your comment below
  1. tsolobolo says:

    one question. ….. why everything that is suspicious that involves our beloved president needs to be protected and by all the henchmen. ..?

  2. tsolobolo says:

    okay. …. if the state is rattled by everything that our president does why when the public protector issues report they become offensive towards her ??

  3. Sam van den Berg says:

    “the minister of police has come out in defence of his fellow ministries,
    adding that she was not an expert on the subject of security and could
    not make that call”

    First: In that case the Constitution should not have given the Public Protector complete autonomy in making any findings she sees fit to make. Was the ANC asleep when the Constitution was drafted? Also note that no legislation passed by the Legislature can restrict her powers. Only empowering legislation can be passed with regard to the PP., not disempowering legislation. Nathi, ask your wife or children to help you read the Constitution (section 181 and 182, Chapter 9). It’s not a long section — you’d be able to grasp the essentials with a week-end’s study with their help.

    Secondly, are you seriously asking us to believe that those accused of abusing security legislation to protect a scoundrel are fit to ‘make that call’? Can a person accused of fraud tell the judge that he is not an expert in a specialized field and instruct the judge to sit still while he judges his own case?

    Thirdly, why then did you allow Zuma to appoint his personal architect, who has no security clearance, to oversee every detail of work that is supposedly so security sensitive?

    Rather shut up than make bigger fools of yourselves in the public eye than you’ve already done. Your best course of action now is to abandon a sinking ship. Perhaps Julius can throw you a few scraps?

Leave a comment