Nkandla Committee meets: Day 2

Yesterday, 28 April, saw day two of the Ad Hoc Committee meeting to discuss the President’s submissions in response to the Public Protector’s report. The DA’s Lindiwe Mazibuko addressed a letter to the Committee proposing a way forward that would see people being called in to give evidence to the Committee. However, this was quickly shut down by the ANC who argued that there was not enough time to do so given the elections on 7 may. Subsequently, a motion was passed that the matter would be referred the fifth parliament “for its consideration”.

The DA’s list of people to give evidence to the Committee would include the Public Protector (PP), the authors of the Security Cluster (inter-Ministerial) report, the Ministers of Police and Defence, Head of the Special Investigating Unit, spokesperson of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, which had made written submissions, and of any other relevant entity.

Given the limited time that the Committee had (until 30 April), Mazibuko believed that an extension of time was necessary but that there was no reason why, if it sat diligently, the Committee would not be able to complete the work.

ANC Member, Dorries Dlakude, expressed the view that it was not proper for the Committee to investigate matters that other bodies (such as the SIU) were still working upon. Additionally, Chairperson of the Committee, Cedric Frolick, clarified that due to time constraints there was no question at this stage of summonsing anyone to appear before the Committee.

The ANC felt that what the DA was suggesting was tantamount to this ad hoc Committee conducting a new inquiry, and cautioned that it should not do so and interrogate the report of the Public Protector anew - this was a complex and complicated matter warranting much time, and the fact was that the country was due to go to the polls on 7 May.

Mazibuko denied suggesting a new inquiry, but felt that it was essential to call for more input on the issues because the Public Protector needed to articulate what the questions were on which she had been unable to get clarity. The DA further reiterated the point that the Committee found itself short of time because the ANC had taken eight days, as opposed to the one taken by the opposition parties, to nominate Members to serve on this Committee.

The FF’s Cornelius Mulder also reminded the Committee that there were constitutional matters at play, for the Public Protector had highlighted, several times, instances of “improper conduct”, “maladministration” and “unlawful” behaviour. The Committee had a constitutional duty to hold the Executive to account.

The IFP’s Narend Singh took a different stance, saying that the "uncomfortable question" was whether the DA’s proposal was achievable in the time available. He pointed out that calling in the Public Protector and others was not merely a question of making one phone call, and whilst supporting the proposal on who needed to be called, he urged that Members had to be practical and realistic about where they found themselves.

Cecil Burgess (ANC) assured Members that the ruling party took the matter “quite seriously. However, they did not believe that the time allocated was sufficient to explore all the matters, and not only did the pending election impact upon the time available to do the work, there was also a danger that this work might be used to influence voters. The ANC did not believe that there was any sense in embarking now upon work that could not be completed, even if an extension was granted, and suggested that the Committee ask the Fifth Parliament to look into the whole matter.

Opposition parties were disappointed in this proposal, and the DA suggested a counter proposal saying that to the extent that this Committee not be able to fulfill all tasks, the outstanding matters should be referred to an ad hoc committee in the Fifth Parliament to investigate any outstanding matters, including whether the President misled Parliament, whether he violated the Constitution, whether he benefited improperly from the work at his residence, any remedial steps, and whether he should be removed from office in terms of section 89 of the Constitution.

This motion was rejected and the ANC’s motion to refer the matter to the fifth Parliament was passed.

Comments

Keep comments free of racism, sexism, homophobia and abusive language. People's Assembly reserves the right to delete and edit comments

(For newest comments first please choose 'Newest' from the 'Sort by' dropdown below.)