I have spent the past two days analyzing Minister of police Nathi Nhleko's report on Nkandla project. As far as am concerned it is well written and is substantiated with facts and covers gaps found in the public protector's report published on 19 March 2014. in this regard, the two reports complement each other, they cannot be separated.
Minister, Nathi Nhleko's report is directive to four key areas that were identified by Madonsela's report as non security comforts. The report has established that there is a security purpose and function for all the identified areas and his findings are supported by facts from expects. Nonetheless, Nathi's report completes the public protector's half done work. Conversely, Madonsela's report mentioned no expertise used to gather her findings and the fact that herself was not a security expect raises questions on the report and methodology used in her investigation. Therefore, Madonsela was not in a position to passing proper judgement on Nkandla as she was ill-informed.
Minister, Nathi Nhleko's report is directive to four key areas that were identified by Madonsela's report as non security comforts. The report has established that there is a security purpose and function for all the identified areas and his findings are supported by facts from expects. Nonetheless, Nathi's report completes the public protector's half done work. Conversely, Madonsela's report mentioned no expertise used to gather her findings and the fact that herself was not a security expect raises questions on the report and methodology used in her investigation. Therefore, Madonsela was not in a position to passing proper judgement on Nkandla as she was ill-informed.
Furthermore, Madonsela's consistent emphasis that the President should “pay a reasonable percentage of the cost of the measures as determined with the assistance of the National Treasury” is violating the legislator's constitutional right to deal with matters independently without interference from other arms of government. I therefore, appeal to the pubic protector to review the constitution of South Africa because I believe her recommendations are not absolute more especially when the issue involves or has been delegated to another independent arm of government by her office. However if the matter is not delegated to a different arm of government then the public protector's recommendation is given highest priority but can still be challenged in the highest court of law. No one is infallible.
In essence, both reports on Nkandla do not conflict but complement each other. The second document completes work that was done on the first document. Hence it is clear that Mr President and his family did not unduly benefit from the Nkandla project. Therefore I believe time has come for all South Africans to put behind the Nkandla issue and focus on other important national issues.
 |
| Nkandla palace |
No comments:
Post a Comment