Is Zuma's world apart?
April 3 2016 By Abiodun Giwa
Zuma and Mandosela (Courtesy:dailymaverick.com.za)
In spite of the court's decision last week that President Jacobs Zuma of South Africa refund part of the money used in the renovation of his home in Nkandla, he is still the president of South Africa. Unless he is impeached as being threatened by opposition parties, he may serve out his term as president, but with a record of official corruption.
What the court pronouncement has done is to bring into the open one struggle in Zuma's official life that has refused to abate, despite his effort and that of senior officials of the African National Congress against reality, and their refusal to agree with the request of the Public Protector's office since 2014.
Thuli Mandosela, the Public Protector, had told Zuma to refund part of the R246m spent on the renovation of his home, but the officials of the ANC had said that as the president of the country, Zuma had the right to renovate his home with the public money for security reasons. Mandosela then said she was not averse to the president's decision to renovate his home at the public's expense for security reasons, but that the amount spent on the swimming pool in the renovation was not in the public's spirit.
Perhaps, if Zuma had respected the wishes of the office of the Public Protector, he would have saved himself and the ANC the effort and the time used in the opposition against the Public Protector's office. Zuma's refusal to reason with the Public Protector's office and the ANC's encouragement of his opposition to the Public Protector's office attracted the opposition parties into the fray, and the continued demand for justice against what the opposition parties called the seed of corruption in Zuma's Nkandla's home renovation.
The National Union of Metal Workers of SA said in a statement that "there is no better measure of degree of rot, corruption and complete loss of revolutionary morality in the ANC and SACP than that poor South Africans lack adequate housing, and billion rounds in taxpayers' money goes on renovation of the president's private home," the National Union of Metal Workers of SA said in a statement in 2014 regarding Zuma's renovation of his home and the face off between him and the Public Protector's office on one hand, and between the Public Protector's office and the ANC on the other hand.
Mandosela had asked whether Zuma will choose to repay part of the R246m spent on swimming pool, cattle kraal, amphitheater and visitors' center, and Zuma had said in response to the request contained in Mandosela's letter that the Police Minister Nathi Nhleko would decide if he should have to repay any of the money. Zuma's statement that the Police Minister would have to decide whatever he would have to do in respect of the tangle with the Public Protector's office over the money the Protector's office said Zuma wrongly spent in the renovation of his private home signaled Zuma's falling apart.
Pundits say that Zuma has agreed to the Public protector's office demand, the agreement would have meant he is culpable to the charge of corruption. His refusal and his opposition to the Public Protector's office is seen as a way to fend off can of worms and prolong the possibility of remaining unscathed.
But since the court had said Zuma should refund the money he spent on his home, would Zuma continue to say only the Police Minister can tell him what to do? Would Zuma and officials of the ANC now agree that spending public money in the renovation of swimming pool is an act of corruption? If they don't, the court has told them that Zuma's act was unconstitutional.
Therefore, Zuma has acted against the constitution, which he has promised to defend and uphold at all times. However, observers are saying they don't see Zuma stepping down and that the ANC that has the majority in the parliament will not stop backing him.
What the court pronouncement has done is to bring into the open one struggle in Zuma's official life that has refused to abate, despite his effort and that of senior officials of the African National Congress against reality, and their refusal to agree with the request of the Public Protector's office since 2014.
Thuli Mandosela, the Public Protector, had told Zuma to refund part of the R246m spent on the renovation of his home, but the officials of the ANC had said that as the president of the country, Zuma had the right to renovate his home with the public money for security reasons. Mandosela then said she was not averse to the president's decision to renovate his home at the public's expense for security reasons, but that the amount spent on the swimming pool in the renovation was not in the public's spirit.
Perhaps, if Zuma had respected the wishes of the office of the Public Protector, he would have saved himself and the ANC the effort and the time used in the opposition against the Public Protector's office. Zuma's refusal to reason with the Public Protector's office and the ANC's encouragement of his opposition to the Public Protector's office attracted the opposition parties into the fray, and the continued demand for justice against what the opposition parties called the seed of corruption in Zuma's Nkandla's home renovation.
The National Union of Metal Workers of SA said in a statement that "there is no better measure of degree of rot, corruption and complete loss of revolutionary morality in the ANC and SACP than that poor South Africans lack adequate housing, and billion rounds in taxpayers' money goes on renovation of the president's private home," the National Union of Metal Workers of SA said in a statement in 2014 regarding Zuma's renovation of his home and the face off between him and the Public Protector's office on one hand, and between the Public Protector's office and the ANC on the other hand.
Mandosela had asked whether Zuma will choose to repay part of the R246m spent on swimming pool, cattle kraal, amphitheater and visitors' center, and Zuma had said in response to the request contained in Mandosela's letter that the Police Minister Nathi Nhleko would decide if he should have to repay any of the money. Zuma's statement that the Police Minister would have to decide whatever he would have to do in respect of the tangle with the Public Protector's office over the money the Protector's office said Zuma wrongly spent in the renovation of his private home signaled Zuma's falling apart.
Pundits say that Zuma has agreed to the Public protector's office demand, the agreement would have meant he is culpable to the charge of corruption. His refusal and his opposition to the Public Protector's office is seen as a way to fend off can of worms and prolong the possibility of remaining unscathed.
But since the court had said Zuma should refund the money he spent on his home, would Zuma continue to say only the Police Minister can tell him what to do? Would Zuma and officials of the ANC now agree that spending public money in the renovation of swimming pool is an act of corruption? If they don't, the court has told them that Zuma's act was unconstitutional.
Therefore, Zuma has acted against the constitution, which he has promised to defend and uphold at all times. However, observers are saying they don't see Zuma stepping down and that the ANC that has the majority in the parliament will not stop backing him.
