ANC chief whip's office distances itself from Sizani's remarks
The remarks former ANC chief whip Stone Sizani reportedly made on the Nkandla matter did not represent the views of the party's parliamentary caucus, the office of the party's chief whip said on Friday.
This was in reference to an interview with Sizani published in the Mail & Guardian.
"The ANC in Parliament reiterates its view that the matter of Nkandla, including its handling by Parliament, is among the matters currently before the Constitutional Court and a judgment in this regard is pending," Moloto Mothapo said.
"We await the outcome of the ConCourt which we shall implement as a sound and authoritative constitutional guide on these matters."
Sizani reportedly said the ANC parliamentary caucus always wanted President Jacob Zuma to pay back the money for Nkandla.
'We have been consistent on our position that President Zuma needed to pay a portion of the Nkandla money in line with the public protector’s decision," Sizani said this week.
In a lengthy interview about the parliamentary process of considering Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's report on upgrades to Zuma's Nkandla home, Sizani said: "The ad hoc committee report in Parliament supported the public protector’s recommendation that the president must pay back a reasonable amount.
"There were no two ways about this. If you disagreed with the public protector, you needed to take her report for a [judicial] review," said Sizani.
He dismissed rumours that he was leaving his position because he had been critical of how the Nkandla matter had been handled.
The ANC announced Sizani's resignation from Parliament earlier this week.
He will be taking up the position of South Africa's ambassador in Germany.
Mothapo said on Friday that all reports that Parliament had considered relating to Nkandla, including the public protector's report Secure in Comfort, were of national importance.
Parliament had a right to consider them independently and express a view.
"As we have repeatedly emphasised, both inside and outside of the parliamentary ad hoc committees, Parliament's consideration of these reports and its recommendations did not in any way seek to replace, rewrite or second guess that of the public protector.
"We believe Parliament did what it ought to do in line with its understanding of its constitutional obligations," he said.
Mothapo said the caucus would wait for the judgment of the Constitutional Court which would guide Parliament on how it should deal with such matters in future.