• All Share : 51890.42
    UP 1.47%
    Top40 - (Tradeable) : 45732.46
    UP 1.39%
    Financial 15 : 14532.77
    UP 1.27%
    Industrial 25 : 70687.18
    UP 1.20%
    Resource 10 : 30177.98
    UP 2.41%

  • ZAR/USD : 14.8528
    UP 0.44%
    ZAR/GBP : 19.9459
    UP 0.59%
    ZAR/EUR : 16.5444
    UP 0.66%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.1446
    UP 0.98%
    ZAR/AUD : 11.0497
    UP 0.44%

  • Gold US$/oz : 1314.1
    DOWN -0.32%
    Platinum US$/oz : 1008
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Silver US$/oz : 18.32
    UP 0.27%
    Palladium US$/oz : 591
    UP 0.51%
    Brent Crude : 50.16
    DOWN -0.10%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by Profile Data
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Thu Jun 30 08:43:29 CAT 2016

Public Protector 'the biggest winner' in Nkandla ConCourt case

Mpho Raborife | 10 February, 2016 08:53
Constitutional Court during the hearing on Nkandla.
Image by: Kavisha Pillay ‏@Kavs_Pillay via Twitter

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela was the biggest winner after Tuesday’s Constitutional Court hearing into the Nkandla saga, a legal expert has said.

President Jacob Zuma’s lawyers accepted that her report about Nkandla was binding and had to be implemented, University of Cape Town constitutional law expert Professor Pierre de Vos said.

Zuma further conceded he had been in the wrong and that his actions were based on the fear of further political fallout which could lead to impeachment.

"Thirdly, Parliament did not concede that it acted wrongly, but given the other concessions, it is almost certain that the court will find Parliament completely stuffed up the way it dealt with the Public Protector's report," De Vos said.

Clear guidance

De Vos hoped the justices would deliver clear guidance about Parliament’s role in holding the executive accountable.

"Because from today's hearing it appears as if Parliament is not doing what the Constitution requires it to do."

The Economic Freedom Fighters, the Democratic Alliance, and the Public Protector approached the Constitutional Court for it to clarify the nature and extent of the chapter nine institution's powers to take remedial action.

The EFF and DA further want the court to find that Zuma failed to implement Mandonsela’s directions that he should repay part of the R246 million spend in upgrading his Nkandla homestead, in breach of his oath of office and his constitutional duties.

De Vos praised Wim Trengrove, for the EFF, for presenting a "strong, logical, and rational" case.

However, Jeremy Gauntlett, for Zuma, threw a spanner in the works by accepting that Madonsela’s remedial action was binding and that he would repay some of the money.

"That really put a bullet through any case that the respondents might have had," De Vos said.
Court reserved judgment.

Source: News24

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.