The South African government has cautioned former public protector Thuli Madonsela from further commenting on President Jacob Zuma‘s alleged role in the “State of Capture” report, which she authored, because it is unconstitutional.
In a statement from the South African Government News Agency Friday, the government backed its decision by citing her recent comments about the report made at the 15th BEN-Africa Conference in Stellenbosch, Cape Town on Thursday. At the conference, Madonsela said that it is her right to decide whether to release transcripts and interviews pertaining to the report.
But according to a statement from the South African government, “Advocate Madonsela has discharged her duties as the Public Protector and has no further role to play in the process regarding the said report. Her unwarranted public attacks on the President, as happened in Stellenbosch on Thursday, are unbecoming and are not helpful.”
South African presidency warns Thulisela Madonsela to refrain from public comments about the President and ‘State of Capture’ report. Photo credit: Drum
On November 5th, eNCA.com, a South African television channel, published a transcript of an audio recording featuring Madonsela interviewing President Zuma about the report. He has, however, denied that he ever met her.
The government is advising Madonsela to restrain from further comments, pending the due constitutional process required to substantiate allegations found in the “State of Capture” report and audio interview.
“This conduct has serious implications with regards to ethics, confidentiality, and the protection of information gathered during investigations by the Office of the Public Protector. It is also not clear why Advocate Madonsela decided to leak only the audio recordings of the discussion with the President, despite the fact that she had interviewed several witnesses,” the government added.
The report casts doubt on the ethics of the President. He is allegedly linked to the Gupta family who appear to have been allowed the unconstitutional role of appointing and sacking state officials and influencing government contracts.
Last year, the eNCA notes that Madonsela, the then-public protector, also accused President Zuma of financial impropriety when he sought to use $17,364,394 of public funds to renovate his private Nkandla home. However, in September, Zuma refunded the money per an order by the South African Constitutional Court.
In light of these corruption allegations against Zuma, there have been calls by the general public and civil society, alike, for him to step down.
Yet on Thursday, President Zuma survived a no-confidence motion in Parliament that was raised against him due to the report.
President Zuma survived the motion with 214 votes to 126 by the opposition party, Democratic Alliance, making it the third time this year that the ruling political party, African National Congress (ANC), has won a no-confidence motion against him, proving that once again his critics must do more to bury him.
