Public protector and president lock horns in court over explosive 'state capture' report Dear President ZumaI refer to your letter dated October 10 2016. My failure to respond to each allegation contained therein should not be construed as an admission thereof. I reserve my rights to deal with these allegations at the appropriate time and place.At the outset I wish to reassure you that this office has, to date: not concluded its investigations into this matter; and made no adverse finding against you.I undertake that this office will comply with its duties under the constitution, the Public Protector Act, Executive Members' Ethics Act and all other relevant laws in conducting this investigation and submitting the report.story_article_left1At the outset of this investigation, I exercised my discretion to expedite proceedings, given that I:• Am empowered by the constitution to conduct an independent and impartial investigation, without fear, favour or prejudice;• Am empowered by the Public Protector Act to afford persons implicated in the investigation an opportunity to respond in an expedited manner;• Was required to submit a report on the alleged breach of the code of ethics within 30 days of receipt of the complaint; and• Reported to you at the end of the period referred to above that the investigation had not yet been completed.This office is nevertheless required to submit another report when the investigation has been completed; and the subject of our investigation is a matter of both national importance and considerable public interest, concerning, as it does, serious allegations of impropriety and legal and ethical violations by you and other state functionaries.I have, since my first letter to you dated March 22 2016, gone to great lengths to provide you with sufficient detail regarding evidence implicating you and the response required from you.I have, in compliance with the Public Protector Act and the law on administrative justice, provided you with ample opportunity to respond in connection therewith.The notice in terms of section 7 (9) of the Public Protector Act is merely one in a succession of letters to you canvassing substantially similar issues regarding this matter.It is of concern to me that you have, on two occasions, undertaken to provide a response to questions put to you in writing; when the time arose, you changed your mind and refused to provide responses.story_article_right2It is, with respect, incumbent upon you to provide responses within a period that I decided is both convenient and practical to me, given that:• The constitution requires you to assist and protect this office;• The constitution prohibits you from interfering with the functioning of this office; and• The Public Protector Act vests in me the discretion to require you to provide me with an expedited response.The spirit of the constitution and the Public Protector Act requires you to cooperate fully in the investigation process; conversely, recalcitrant witnesses, particularly high-ranking members of the executive such as you, should be regarded as violating the letter and spirit of the constitution and the Public Protector Act.I have provided you with the evidence of the witnesses implicating you. You are not entitled to the full record of investigations as a condition precedent to answering the questions I have put to you.I look forward to receiving the questions you wish to pose to witnesses who have appeared before me. I shall make a determination on such questions in accordance with the Public Protector Act.You are not entitled to refuse to answer the questions I have put to you prior to questioning other witnesses who have appeared before me. Your right to question witnesses is not a sine qua non for your response to my questions.I believe that it is in your interest, and that of the people of South Africa, to account fully and honestly regarding the allegations against you.I am affording you a further extension to answer the questions put to you by no later than 11am, Thursday, October 13 2016 to enable this office to conclude the investigation and issue its report on the outcome thereof as soon as possible.I extend my commitment to meet with you, telephone you or communicate in any other manner, at any time convenient to you, to receive your version of events before 11am, Thursday, October 13 2016. I look forward to hearing from you in the above regard and thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.Best wishesAdvocate Thuli Madonselasub_head_start Zuma's response to court: I need more time sub_head_endI must at the outset point out that I was not an affected person in this investigation until October 2 2016 (some 11 days ago). Until then, the investigation conducted by the respondents and in respect of which the respondents intend to issue an interim report had nothing to do with me.I am now expected to answer questions that relate to issues which back date to 2009 and in respect of which a proper investigation needs to be completed before I can provide accurate responses.I have explained to the respondents in recent correspondence that I need a reasonable time to provide comprehensive answers to the questions. The respondents refused to provide me with a reasonable opportunity to give meaningful answers to the questions.full_story_image_hright1To do so, I would need to consult with the persons referred to in those questions. I do not have any power to compel those who I must obtain information from, to do so and to do so within the time the respondents have given me.By way of illustration, I am being requested to furnish information regarding 21 individuals on whether they visited a particular residence and the reasons for their visits.A proper and complete answer to this question would entail me making contact with these individuals; enquire whether they have visited that particular residence; when they would have visited that particular residence; and ultimately what the reasons for those visits were.Their questions are protected in terms of section 7(2) of the act, and can only be disclosed to this honourable court with the consent of the respondents.I invite the respondents to provide such consent so that this honourable court can objectively determine whether the two sets of questions issued to me can be dealt with in time frames as provided for by the respondents.story_article_left3Apart from the exercise being a tedious and time-consuming exercise, and without any power to compel them to give me answers, and to give me honest responses to the questions, the respondents still require me to do so by 11am on October 13 2016 before the second respondent vacates her office, which is October 14 2016.This is despite the respondents being aware that I was on a state visit to Kenya and I arrived back in the country late on October 12 2016.It is common cause that the investigation is one done by the Office of the Public Protector which office is a Chapter 9 institution with a life beyond the term of office of the incumbent.There is no rational explanation why the questions sent to me cannot be properly addressed and the answers furnished within a reasonable time to that office after the second respondent has left.Further, the respondents threatened that if I do not respond to the questions, the respondents will make finding against me without hearing my version of the events.It is this threat that has exacerbated the bringing of this urgent application, as the publication of the interim report will infringe on my right to fair administrative action.The respondents have not stated in so many words that it is intended to publish the interim report by October 14 2016.The manner in which the respondents have insisted that I provide a response by 11am on October 13 2016 makes the inference irresistible that the objective is to publish on October 14 2016 before the second respondent vacates her office...