Should public protector Thuli Madonsela release her provisional report on Nkandla to interested parties without the security cluster’s “authorisation”, she will be guilty of a criminal offence, “which carries with it a criminal penalty”, court papers reveal.
The ministers of police, defence, state security and public works have argued that they therefore require more time to peruse the 357 page long provisional report.
A provisional report into how more than R206-million of state funds was spent on upgrading President Jacob Zuma’sprivate Nkandla estate is currently in the hands of the government’s security cluster made up of the state security, police and defence ministries. While these departments were due to send their comments and responses on the report to Madonsela’s office on Friday, they instead headed for court.
As it stands, according to the ministers, the report contains “a plethora of breaches of state security”, which the ministers should be allowed to bring to the public protector’s attention, so that she can delete the offending bits.
They argue that the public protector was “unreasonable” in granting them only a few days to comment on the “voluminous” report.
The Mail & Guardian understands that the public protector is considering her options, legally, and that her office will convene a press conference soon.
The security of the country
So devastating is the current report, the ministers say, it will severely compromise President Jacob Zuma’s security and the security of the country.
The ministers received the provisional report on November 1.
They were given until November 6 to raise any matters with the public protector that could compromise the security of the president.
On November 4, the ministers asked for an extension, until November 15, to submit any comments, due to the seriousness of the information contained in the report, as well as its “voluminous” nature.
On Friday, both parties agreed to a postponement until November 15, when the interdict application will be heard in full.
‘Unreasonable and unwarranted’
In essence, the ministers want the court to agree with this paragraph, as stated in their papers:
“The respondent [Madonsela] is precluded by law from releasing classified, top secret and confidential information which may compromise the security of the state and the president and she is interdicted from releasing her provisional report until such time as she has received comments from the applicants on matters which ought to be omitted from the provisional report.”
“The respondent’s refusal to grant the extension is unreasonable and unwarranted. A mere extension of 7 days will do no harm to the respondent despite her determination to have the provisional report released soonest,” the ministers argued.
The ministers also said it was “worrying” that the Public Protector seemed to be in a hurry to release her report, especially on a Saturday.
“It is not clear what has become so extremely urgent for the respondent that the provisional report ought to be released on Saturday and not on any other day thereafter despite a request for more time to comment from the applicants.”