Parliament’s special committee considering Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana’s report on the complaint by Deputy President Jacob Zuma against National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Bulelani Ngcuka seems set for lengthy debate between the various parties represented.
The committee met for the second time on Thursday afternoon and almost immediately got bogged down in a long discussion on the relevance to the committee’s task of various documents requested by opposition parties.
The documents concerned included, among others, correspondence pertaining to the Joint Investigation Team’s probe into the multibillion-rand arms deal and 35 questions posed to Zuma by the NPA and leaked to the Sunday Times, all pertaining to the background section of Mushwana’s report.
Some members, including Raenette Taljaard and Sheila Camerer of the Democratic Alliance, Patricia de Lille of the Independent Democrats, Malezole Diko of the United Democratic Movement and the Inkatha Freedom Party’s Koos van der Merwe argued the relevance of the documents to the committee’s business, and wanted them made available.
However, African National Congress members and the New National Party argued they were not, saying they were already in the public domain and it was unnecessary to place them before the committee officially.
Carol Johnson of the NNP and Annelize van Wyk of the ANC, among others, warned against the committee overstepping its mandate.
The committee’s task is not to reopen Mushwana’s investigation, but simply to consider his report, and accept or reject the recommndations made.
At one stage, De Lille accused the ANC of trying to ”steamroller” the opposition, and called for issues raised to be put to the vote.
Committee chairperson Ismail Vadi said he was reluctant to do this and parties should instead strive to reach consensus.
Documents already in the public domain are easily available to MPs, who simply have to do ”a bit of homework” to access them.
It was eventually agreed that members ”flag” the issues concerning them for later discussion, and work continued.
The committee is scheduled to meet again on Friday.
Mushwana’s report, presented to Parliament on May 28, found it had been ”unfair and improper” for Ngcuka to have said publicly there was a prima facie case of corruption against Zuma but that Zuma would not be prosecuted.
He said a public statement by Ngcuka had impaired Zuma’s dignity and improperly prejudiced him.
The report also said Ngcuka and former justice minister Penuell Maduna failed to cooperate with Mushwana when he was investigating the complaint against Ngcuka.
Ngcuka issued a statement in August 2003 saying there was a prima facie case of corruption against Zuma over the multibillion-rand arms deal, but he would not prosecute him as the chances of success were not strong enough.
Much public debate and media speculation about Zuma’s possible corrupt involvement in the South African National Defence Force’s arms procurement followed.
Zuma then complained to the public protector about Ngcuka’s remark and about the way in which the criminal investigation against him was conducted.
Mushwana recommended in his report Parliament take urgent steps to hold Ngcuka responsible for his ”unfair and improper” behaviour towards Zuma and his failure to cooperate with the protector’s investigation. — Sapa