South Africa

South Africa

Zuma (non)apology reactions: An obfuscation of the highest order

Zuma (non)apology reactions: An obfuscation of the highest order

President Jacob Zuma’s Friday night “apology” for the Nkandla saga bombed, at least with opposition parties. The DA, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), IFP, United Democratic Movement (UDM), Freedom Front Plus and Cope said the president failed to take responsibility, and did not even give South Africans an unreserved apology. In contrast the ANC expressed its “satisfaction” with the apology, and announced an extended national working committee meeting on Monday and a process of engaging all regions and the parliamentary caucus over the clarity given by the Constitutional Court judgement on the Nkandla debacle. By MARIANNE MERTEN.

IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who does not often issue statements in his own name, described Friday evening’s presidential address to the nation as “obfuscation”, saying it was “hardly news worthy” the president agreed to abide by the Constitutional Court judgement, given there was no choice in the matter.

“The IFP cannot view the president’s statement as being made in good faith… South Africa deserved more from the president,” said Buthelezi shortly after the president’s statement. “At the very least South Africa deserved an unreserved apology, without a lengthy explanation why the president feels he has at no point done anything wrong. That was obfuscation of the highest order.”

UDM leader Bantu Holomisa took a less delicate approach: “Both Zuma and the ANC are showing South Africa the middle finger… They decided to ignore the judges said he (Zuma) violated the Constitution”. He added the president was now blaming his legal advisors, instead of taking responsibility.

Earlier in the evening Zuma addressed the nation to “emphasise that I never knowingly or deliberately set out to violate the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the Republic”. Any action he took, which now has been ruled unconstitutional and unlawful, arose “because of a different approach and different legal advice. It all happened in good faith and there was no deliberate effort or intention to subvert the Constitution on my part”.

The statement came followed a meeting of the ANC top six officials amid vocal calls from outside and within the party for Zuma to step down and exit with dignity. A day earlier, the Constitutional Court on Thursday ruled the public protector’s findings and remedial actions were binding – unless challenged in a court of law. The court found the president, and the National Assembly, had violated the Constitution – and ordered Zuma to repay on a strict timeframe the amount determined by the National Treasury for the non-security upgrades at his Nkandla rural residence.

In March 2014 the “Secure in Comfort” public protector report found Zuma had “unduly” benefitted from non-security upgrades like the swimming pool, cattle kraal, chicken run, amphitheatre and visitors’ centre, and should repay a reasonable percentage of those costs following a determination by the National Treasury and SAPS.

Instead of acting as directed, in August 2014 Zuma directed Police Minister Nkosinathi Nhleko to determine whether there should by any repayment. Using the minister’s report absolving the president of any liability, the National Assembly late in 2015 adopted a resolution also absolving Zuma. This, the Constitutional Court found, was tantamount of stepping into the shoes of the public protector and replacing her findings with their own, and thus unconstitutional.

DA leader Mmusi Maimane said Zuma “clearly… has no idea what the Constitution requires of him” or how South Africans viewed him.

“To say that he acted in ‘good faith’, and that it has all been a misunderstanding based on a ‘different approach’, insults our intelligence and belittles the sacrifices made by so many to establish our freedom,” Maimane said. “He (Zuma) has on numerous occasions and in many forums ducked and dived to evade his obligations to uphold the Constitution and the law. He is simply not worth of the office entrusted to him.”

The EFF said an apology was not enough. “If u kill someone, u are guilty & must serve time in prison, even if u did not intend to kill them. Zuma insults the intelligence of Mzanzi,” tweeted EFF spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi.

In the wake of the court ruling, EFF leader Julius Malema said South African should unite and, if necessary, take to the streets. “We call upon the ANC to do the right thing and to recall the president. We will stop him physically, we will prevent him from speaking. President Zuma is no longer the president of the Republic of South Africa. We are not going to sit back and allow the continuation of the violation of the constitution,” said Malema.

The Freedom Front Plus predicted “a long painful decline” ahead; Zuma’s statement clearly showed he did not understand the seriousness of the matter. FF+ chief whip Corne Mulder said Zuma had failed to answer all questions the public protect put to him during the investigation into the R215 million taxpayer-funded security upgrades. To say now that he respected the office was “a blatant lie”, Mulder added: “He undermined the public protector from day one. He thought he could get away with it”.

Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota said neither Zuma nor the ANC understood the “gravity” of the situation”. The court ruling should have led to the “automatic removal from office” of Zuma, as ANC MPs now “live with the blot of having betrayed their oath of office”.

However, ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe on Friday evening said the president had “humbled” himself and apologised: “We are comfortable with the fact he has apologised”.

And he dismissed calls for Zuma’s resignation, saying the court made no order to this effect and opposition parties did not constitute society. “We are not just a democracy based on who shouts loudest.” DM

A file photograph dated 06 August 2015 shows South African president Jacob Zuma reacts whilst answering questions from opposition parties in parliament, Cape Town, 06 August 2015. EPA/NIC BOTHMA.

Gallery

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

X

This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.


Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider

Every seed of hope will one day sprout.

South African citizens throughout the country are standing up for our human rights. Stay informed, connected and inspired by our weekly FREE Maverick Citizen newsletter.