Public protector finding president Zuma innocent and guilty in same report on Nkandla is a legal impossibility

There are people who prefer to comment on books or reports they never read or studied.

Last month, the public protector, Thuli Madonsela released the much-anticipated Nkandla report. The report was occasioned by her investigation into the security upgrade at president Jacob Zuma’s homestead in Nkandla.

Surprisingly, many people rushed to comment on the report before they read it. How can a rational person comment on a report he has never read or studied?

President Zuma should be applauded for deciding to study the report first before he commented on it.

Shortly after the release of the report, some people began hurling insults at Madonsela. The public protector was subjected to all sorts of name-calling.

The most disparaging personal attacks on Madonsela came from the ANC Youth League and Cosas. The youth league and Cosas leaders publicly said that Thuli Madonsela “has a very big ugly nose”. That statement was uncouth, demeaning and blatantly disrespectful.

Madonsela’s report indicates that some officials in the departments of public works and defence as well as the SAPS acted unlawfully in their handling of the Nkandla project. The report cited several legislations that were violated by the implicated officials.

In the report, Madonsela admits that she did not uncover any evidence of wrongdoing by Zuma. Surprisingly, she then went on to say that Zuma acted wrongly and unlawfully.

The discourse of legal jurisprudence does not countenance that kind of a prejudiced statement. In a legal context, you cannot say someone is both innocent and guilty. If there is no evidence to prove that Zuma acted unlawfully or improperly, there is no case against him.

Madonsela was wrong to blame Zuma without providing any evidence to that effect. By implication, the report presupposes that Zuma is both innocent and guilty. That is a regrettable travesty of justice. There is no any court of law that has ever found an accused person “both guilty and not guilty”.

The Nkandla report truly undermines the constitutional and personal integrity of president Zuma. Throughout the report, one cannot find any piece of evidence to prove that Zuma acted wrongfully.

The report clearly illustrates that Madonsela was playing both the ball and the man. She failed to uncover any evidence of wrongdoing on Zuma, but she continued to insist that he acted wrongly and unlawfully. Madonsela’s findings on Zuma are judicially flawed and legally incomprehensible.

There are some plausible reasons to believe that the president did not act unlawfully or illegally.

Firstly, the report admits that Zuma did not request the security upgrades at his Nkandla homestead.

Secondly, Zuma did not draw up any list of security features for his Nkandla home.

Thirdly, Zuma was not part of any government meetings that discussed the Nkandla project.

Lastly, Madonsela should publicly respond to these critical questions: which specific law or policy was contravened by Zuma with regard to the Nkandla project? Why should Zuma be expected to repay money for the security expenses he never solicited or requested?

Elvis Masoga

Political analyst