Nkandla: 11 ConCourt orders handed down

2016-03-31 16:10
Gallery  |  click on thumbnail to view larger image

PICS: Inside the ConCourt on Zuma's judgment day

View pics of all the action that went down inside the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg during the Nkandla judgment.

Johannesburg - The Constitutional Court on Thursday handed down a precedent-setting judgment that both President Jacob Zuma and the National Assembly were in breach of their constitutional obligations in the Nkandla matter.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng read out the 53-page unanimous judgment on the applications lodged by the EFF and the DA.

Eleven orders were made:

- The court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the application by the EFF

The EFF approached the court in a bid to have Zuma comply with Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s remedial action that he repay the money spent on those Nkandla upgrades not needed for his security.

Mogoeng said conditions for the exercise of the court’s exclusive jurisdiction had been met.

"I conclude that the EFF has made out a case that the president’s alleged failure to comply with the remedial action, coupled with the failure to uphold the Constitution, relate to constitutional obligations imposed specifically on him," he said.

The Constitutional Court, as the highest court in the land, also had exclusive jurisdiction as it related to the National Assembly.

- The DA's application for direct access is granted

Mogoeng allowed the DA's application for access because it was similar to the EFF’s. The issues involved were extremely sensitive and of “high political importance”.

- The public protector’s findings against Zuma are binding in terms of the Constitution

Mogoeng said it was unlikely that those the public protector investigated would welcome unpleasant findings or "biting" remedial action.

"If compliance with remedial action taken were optional, then very few culprits, if any at all, would allow it to have any effect. And if it were, by design, never to have a binding effect, then it is incomprehensible just how the public protector could ever be effective in what she does and be able to contribute to the strengthening of our constitutional democracy."

He said the National Assembly was entitled to inquire into the correctness of the public protector’s findings and remedial action before it could hold the president accountable, but not in a way which undermined or trumped her mandate.

Mogoeng said the correct route would have been to challenge the Public Protector's report in court.

- Zuma’s failure to comply with the public protector’s remedial action is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid

Zuma failed in his obligations to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. He failed in his duty to help and protect the public protector’s office to ensure its independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness.

- The National Assembly’s absolving Zuma from compliance with the public protector’s remedial action is invalid and set aside

"The National Assembly was duty-bound to hold the president accountable by facilitating and ensuring compliance with the decision of the public protector," Mogoeng said.

The National Assembly, like Zuma, could have genuinely believed that it was entitled to second-guess the remedial action.

"But, that still does not affect the unlawfulness of its preferred course of action."

- The president must reprimand the ministers involved

In a draft order submitted to the court before the hearing in February, Zuma said he was willing to reprimand ministers, in line with the public protector’s remedial action.

- Zuma must pay back the money (4 orders)

The Constitutional Court made four orders relating to the repayment of some of the R246m spent on non-security upgrades at Nkandla.

Firstly, National Treasury had to determine the reasonable cost of those features; namely the swimming pool, chicken run, cattle kraal, amphitheatre, and vistors’ centre.

Secondly, it had to determine how much of this amount Zuma should pay.

Treasury then had 60 days to report back to the court with its findings.

Finally, Zuma then had 45 days to pay back the money.

- Zuma, the National Assembly, and police minister had to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.

Read more on:    anc  |  jacob zuma  |  mogoeng mogoeng  |  thuli madonsela  |  nkandla upgrade  |  politics

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.