Court: Zuma failed to uphold the constitution – NewZimbabwe 31/03/2016
THE Public Protector’s remedial action against President Jacob Zuma over the upgrades to his Nkandla home were binding, the Constitutional Court said on Thursday.
“The remedial action taken against the president has a binding effect,” said Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.
“The president failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution.”
He said that if compliance with the Public Protector’s remedial action were optional, then very few would allow it to have any effect.
“And if by design it never had a binding effect then [it would be] incomprehensible how the Public Protector could be effective,” Mogoeng said.
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela had found that upgrades which were done on Zuma’s homestead were not all security upgrades, as stated.
She found that Zuma had unduly benefited from some of the upgrades which included the building of an amphitheatre, a cattle kraal, a chicken run and swimming pool, among other things.
As a course of remedial action, she recommended that he pay back a portion of the funds used for the upgrades.
Madonela’s report however, was set aside by the National Assembly after Zuma made submissions on why he should not pay back the funds. An ad hoc committee led by the Minister of Police also backed Zuma’s report and exonerated him from upholding the report.
The DA and EFF were among the parties that took the matter to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Public Protectors’ report cannot be ignored.
COMMENTS
This is really democracy @ work – where no one and no one not even a sitting President, nor his wife or children are allowed to be the law unto themselves. One thing for sure is, even as black Africans we went to war, chief among other things, to ensure all citizens are equal before & below the law.
Alas! Did we achieve this in Zimbabwe; where emperor Ceasar, his wife, children and kinsmen are all above the law?
This is interesting. During the Colonial area a decision by the SA Appeals Court would also be binding in the then Rhodesia. However, this arrangement was terminated by the Mugabe Government and that raise the interesting legal precept – namely that in a democracy everyone is equal under the law.
But then Zimbabwe is not a democracy and the Judges there will be too afraid of Mugabe to rule against him in anything.
What is absolutely sure – Mugabe is a lucky man, he would not got away with what he did in the SA legal environment, where the Judiciary insist on the protection of the Constitution.