Public protector Thuli Madonsela said she would give details in court papers as to why she believes the security cluster's request is "unlawful, unconstitutional and violates the independence of her office", she said in a statement on Monday.
Madonsela added that she was "reluctant" to give the security cluster an extra extension to view her provisional report into spending at Nkandla because doing so would have been an "injustice to the interested and affected parties".
The security cluster ministers requested more time to view the provisional report citing security concerns about the information in the report. They went to court on Friday seeking an urgent interdict to bar Madonsela from releasing her provisional report to interested and affected parties until they had additional time to vet the report.
Madonsela requested a postponement and the matter was adjourned until November 15.
Respect
On Monday Madonsela said she respected the outcome of the court process and would not anticipate what the outcome would be. However, she wanted to "clarify" the reasons why she did not grant the security cluster the extension it wanted.
"On the reluctance to grant the state a longer extension, the public protector was of the view that acceding to the request would be an injustice on the affected and implicated parties.
"She was, as indicated in her letter to minister Thulas Nxesi on November 5 2013, concerned that leaving the report in the hands of the security cluster for an unduly extended period would prejudice in particular those that she has made provisional adverse findings against and those she has quoted as having provided her with evidence and who, to date, have not received the report.
"It would also not be in the public interest if the security cluster has exclusive possession of the report. These concerns were expressed to the Minister, who offered no solutions to them," Madonsela said.
Despite these concerns, Madonsela said she was in the process of reconsidering her position, "in the interest of keeping the spirit of cooperation that she has been trying to engender every time she encountered obstacles in the investigation".
But the security cluster gave her "no opportunity to do so" because the letter requesting more time arrived on Thursday afternoon, "indicating that if she did not respond in an hour it would be assumed that she was declining".
"The public protector was out of town on the day and the state was made aware of this. She only got the information later than night. A response had been prepared when the public protector received court papers shortly before 9am, Friday, November 8 2013," Madonsela said.
De facto
She said it was now "public knowledge" that the deadline of the November 15 for comments was already been de facto granted by the postponement in court.
"The public may want to know why she opposes the extension if it has been granted, de facto. The public protector opposes the application on two grounds. The first is that the security cluster says it has a right to a provisional report and the other being that the court papers are in effect asking for an extension that goes beyond the 10 working days requested in the two letters to her.
"The security cluster requests that they be given further opportunity to peruse the "revised" provisional report to determine whether all the security concerns would have been addressed and if not be granted further opportunity to make written comments within seven days. In the event the public protector does integrate all of the concerns raised, the security cluster requests leave to approach the court," she said.
"The public protector would further like to put it on record, again, that it was not her who voluntarily decided to share the report in question with the concerned organs of state ahead of other parties as has been suggested. It was, in fact, these organs of state that made a special request to the public protector, advancing the reasons that they wanted to ensure that the content does not compromise the security of the President," she said.