Madonsela defends joining EFF in ConCourt case

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela says she views criticism by the office of the ANC’s chief whip of her decision to join the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in a Constitutional Court case as an attack on her and a veiled threat about her continued occupation of the position of Public Protector.

The EFF wants the Constitutional Court to compel President Jacob Zuma to repay some of the R246m spent on upgrades to his Nkandla homestead as recommended by Madonsela.

These refer specifically to costs not related to security‚ like a swimming pool‚ cattle kraal and amphitheatre.

On Monday. the office of the ANC’s chief whip said Madonsela's decision to join the EFF's court bid could dent her institution's reputation.

“The public protector’s decision to legally align herself with a political party‚ regardless of whether it breaks any law or not‚ is ill-advised‚ unfortunate‚ and has the potential to fundamentally dent that chapter nine institution’s reputation as an institution that is politically impartial‚” the office of ANC chief whip Stone Sizani said in statement.

“It makes a mockery of the very principles she ought to uphold in the eyes of the public.”

Responding to the controversy on Tuesday‚ Madonsela’s office said in a statement: “The Public Protector is shocked that the Chief Whip has responded in the manner he did. She considers the statement an attack on her. The Public Protector also considers it a veiled threat about her continued occupation of the position of Public Protector. She trusts that the Chief Whip has not discussed the statement with the ANC because the ANC should know better‚”

It said the Public Protector had only joined the EFF after it was given the opportunity to be heard by the Constitutional Court.

“This was because there would have been no other forum to hear the same case. The Chief Whip would have known this had he sought legal advice before issuing the statement. The decision to join the EFF in the matter was informed by the ‘nothing about us without us’ principle. In other words‚ the Public Protector sought to avoid a situation where her office's powers are determined without her input.

“A careful study of the pleadings the Public Protector makes in court papers will show that the Public Protector confined herself to the powers of the office and not the merits of the EFF's argument. This is because the Public Protector believes that her report speaks for itself.”

Madonsela’s office said she had taken a decision a long time ago that she would not take the government to court but would join court proceedings as an amicus curaie if a complainant she ruled in favour of took the government to court for implementation of remedial action.

“This is done by Public Protector-like institutions across the globe. It should be noted that‚ on the Nkandla matter‚ it was the Public Protector that advised the President himself to take the report to court.”

The statement added: “Regarding insinuations of bias to the EFF in respect of the Public Protector's daughter joining the party‚ the Public Protector would like to put it on record that her office does not have in its case load a complaint lodged by her daughter. The daughter was advised by the Public Protector to rather lodge her complaint with the Human Rights Commission precisely because of the issue of conflict of interest. The Public Protector therefore views this insinuation as calculated to besmirch her and to undermine her legitimacy.”

RDM News Wire.