Zuma Asks to Question Gupta #StateCapture Witnesses. Madonsela Responds!

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma – who has been criticised Monday for being silent while Braamfontein was brought to a standstill by student protests – has had his mind on other things. The #StateCapture probe.

This evening, the Presidency announced that Zuma had written to the Public Protector asking her to provide him with witness names and the transcripts of their testimony… and requested that he, or his legal representative, be able to question them themselves.

Advocate Thuli Madonsela has already responded.

The President’s requests sparked outrage, with some detractors accusing the President of just wanting to “intimidate” those who had come out regarding the alleged ‘state capture’ by the Gupta family (pictured on this page and references in the Zuma jokes).

The Democratic Alliance (DA) reacted saying: “We cannot allow Zuma to tacitly or explicitly undermine the work of the Public Protector in order to evade accountability #StateCapture” and said his “last ditch attempt to stall the #StateCapture probe points to a panicked man whose chickens have finally come home to roost”.

Tonight Madonsela said she noted the Presidency’s statement relating to her investigation into the alleged involvement of the Gupta family in the dismissal and appointment of Cabinet Ministers and Members of Boards of Directors of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as well as other possibly corrupt influences and licenses (known collectively in South Africa by hashtag #StateCapture).

In his statement, the President said he was only given two days to prepare before the meeting that took place on Thursday, 06 October 2016 and is entitled to question other witnesses. (Read the Presidency’s full statement here.)

Madonsela responded: “The Public Protector would like to report that President Jacob Zuma was afforded a proper opportunity to tender his evidence since 22/03/2016. 

“President Zuma was on Saturday, October 01, 2016, given all copies of evidence implicating him.

“His lawyer raised a request to question witnesses for the first time on Thursday, October 06, 2016 when he was asking for a deferment of the investigation to the next Public Protector.

“A letter has been prepared to advise the President to submit questions that will be put to witnesses on his behalf. The Public Protector’s approach to the investigation has been informed by, amongst others, section 7(9)(a) of the Public Protector Act. It provides that: “The Public Protector shall afford such (implicated) person an opportunity to respond … in any manner…that may be expedient under the circumstances”.

“Expedient in the circumstances takes into account that the Executive Members’ Ethics Act requires an investigation regarding possible violations of the Executive Ethics Code to be concluded within 30 days.

“It’s of concern to the PP that President has on 2 occasions undertaken to answer questions and when the time arose, he changed his mind.

“The Public Protector genuinely believes it is in the interests of the President to account for what he knows regarding the allegations which the Public Protector already forwarded to him in March 2016.

“The Public Protector also believes it is in the interest of public trust that the matter be concluded expeditiously.

“She accordingly appeals to the President to assist with any information he has that can assist the investigation, primarily, by answering the questions put to him.”

Yo Blade, yo Zuma where is the leadership? @ParliamentofRSA @PresidencyZA pic.twitter.com/XqgqDfkPAC

— L.E.L 🇺🇬 (@Master_Basajj) October 10, 2016