The Constitutional Court ruling defining the powers of the Public Protector has major implications for the ANC leadership going forward.
702/Cape Talk's Redi Tlhabi invited constitutional law expert, Pierre de Vos, to provide some perspective of issues surrounding the issues around the Constitutional Court ruling .
Listen to the interview below:
They [NA] started a parallel process to exonerate the president from responsibility.— Pierre de Vos, constitutional law expert
They made the decision to not be held bound by the findings and not pay back the money, that is clear.— Pierre de Vos, constitutional law expert
Pierre emphasised the legal provisions that were central to the Nkandla matter being referred to the Public Protector and the courts.
Section 96 of The Constitution provides that if you are a member of the Executive, you cannot have a conflict of interest between your personal interest and your job as the president and you cannot do anything that will enrich you at the expense of the state.— Pierre de Vos, constitutional law expert
In this case, the court told the National Assembly that they have not done their job and instead nullified the Public Protectors findings which is equal to taking the law into your own hands. For that it was found to be in breach of it's consitutional duty.— Pierre de Vos, constitutional law expert
This article first appeared on 702 : Pierre de Vos: There's a conflict in Zuma's explanation and the reality