South African president seeks to resolve spending scandal

It was expected to hear the matter next Tuesday.

“President Jacob Zuma has proposed an end to the drawn-out legal controversy regarding the Public Protector’s March 2014 report on Nkandla, “Secure in Comfort”,” read a statement from the Presidency.

Hoffman said the taxpayer was the big victor because the state would get money back from Zuma, the architect involved and officials who let the upgrades balloon to R250 million. While the graft ombudsman recommended partial repayment, a police report, adopted by the National Assembly controlled by Zuma’s African National Congress, has cleared Zuma of liability.

Maimane said the party chose to proceed with presenting their heads of argument in the Constitutional Court on Tuesday after getting advice from their legal team.

The scandal has added to public criticism of Zuma’s leadership, including his move in December to fire the finance minister and replace him with a little-known lawmaker.

This letter comes less than two weeks before the president’s State of the Nation address and a week before the matter will come before the highest court in the land. “It also found no benefit for which the President could to any degree be required to compensate the state in relation to almost all aspects of the project”.

The president agreed to pay back some of the money, and proposed that a process be carried out by National Treasury in conjunction with SAPS to determine how much he owes on five features specifically mentioned by the Public Protector.

After allowing the matter to drag out and plague his presidency and the ANC, Zuma now “supports the need for finality in the matter of the Public Protector’s report”. The DA and public protector have joined the court action.

The report finished off by saying that “none of the EFF, the DA and the public protector have responded to the President’s proposal, which was made in his answering affidavit in November last year”.

“It will now be for the court to decide if the offer is an appropriate basis for an order when the applications are argued on 9 February 2016”. “So there are a number of issues on which the Constitutional Court will have to pronounce”.

Opposition parties, particularly the militant left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), have since frequently heckled Zuma in parliament over his refusal to pay the money.