The effectiveness of the remedial action taken against the President Jacob Zuma by the Public Protector for the non-security enhancements to his home in Nkandla has been ‘unwarrantedly diluted by the narrow ambit of the orders made in error by the court. It is right and proper that the error be corrected in the interest of justice and to promote the exacting of accountability on the part of the President,’ says Accountability Now’s Paul Hoffman SC, in an analysis in Business Day.

He notes that while the Public Protector’s report (paragraph 11.1) said Zuma must pay a reasonable percentage of the money spent for non-security items ‘which include the visitors centre, the amphitheatre, the cattle kraal and chicken run, the swimming pool’, the Constitutional Court’s order (paragraph 5) ‘without explanation and in contradiction of the finding of the court’ stipulates that he must pay a reasonable percentage of work done on ‘the visitors centre, the amphitheatre, the cattle kraal, the chicken run and the swimming pool only’.

Says Hoffman: ‘The error in the court order is both patent and expensive. The non-security upgrades have been limited to the five examples referred to by the Public Protector. If the order is left unchanged, the President will not have to pay back most of the money reasonably spent on non-security upgrades.’ He adds it is incumbent on the affected parties to make an application to the court under rule 42 of the High Court rules to rectify the error in the judgment. ‘It is right and proper that the error be corrected in the interest of justice and to promote the exacting of accountability on the part of the President.’

Full analysis in Business Day

Public Protector’s ‘Secure in Comfort’ report

EFF v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; DA v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others