You are on page 1of 11
IN ‘THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE.NO: 79808/16 Inthe application for intervention of DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE intervening Party In the matter between: PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant and THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR int Respondent ‘THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR Second Respondent APPLICANT'S REPLYING AFFIDAVIT I, the undersigned, JACOB GEDLEYIHLEKISA ZUMA, ‘do hereby make oath and state chat 1. Lam the President of the Republic of South Afiea (“he President”), duly appointed in terms of section 87 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Afsics, £38 of 1999 (‘the Constitution”). I am the applicant in the matter. Ihave previously deposed to the founding affidavit thie matter 2 The facts contsined herein fill within my pertonal knowledge, unless the context indicates otherwise, and ae, tothe best of my Knowledge and belie both true and corect. 3. Any legal submissions that are made by me are made on the advice of my legal repesentasves, ‘THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR’S DECISION TO ABIDE, 4. Before replying to the DA's answering afGdavit, 1 wish to deal with the Public Protecter’s affidavit only insofar as it relates to the status of the report 5, In my answering afGidwvit to the DA's intervention application, 1 demonstated that Fourie delivered an affidavit in he Van Rooyen application which contains a conteadiction. On the one hand, he stated that ih gt the investigation had been fnlsed but, on the other and, ha is false snd thatthe report had been signed. T pase to mension tat, athe ime of Inunching the application, I received no indcaom that the rpore would be finale. I wes sequested to provide my answers tothe questions to the Public Protectce by 11h00 on ‘Thursday, 13 October 2016 annexure “K” to the founcng ada). This aplication was launched on 13 Oetober. ‘The pplication was served on the Public Protector at 11:17, have already dealt with the importance of this Iter in my answering affidavit to the DA's ‘intervention application and do not intend repeating it hese “The Public Prerector has now delivered a notice to abide the decision ofthe Honourable Court on 2t October 2016, She fled an “anserng effet” together with anotce to abide She then sets out her position in onder “Yo be of auistna to the Court i ajniaig non th mates”. Sre specially states that she has not been able to fully acquaint herself in detail with the process that Adv Madonsela followed in conducting. the investignion and preparing h sep (Nevertheless, she received «briefing fom Fourie telating zo the conducting, ‘of the investigation and the preparing of the seport. She concedes that paragraphs 13 19 27 of my founding affidavit (xclading paragraph 21) and 10. the comtesponcence between myself and Adv Madonsela, “appea” to be aceutate and constitute the common eause facts inthis application, She ako states that she cannot frm a view on the appropsiateness ofthe proces followed in the prepaaton of the report and i s uncles, fom a legal perspec, whether she is psn to evs the ings contained in the report which “hor Seer fnid and cg by [e} prdeesir, Adee Mado”, Therefore, she is not “ina pation m either ada thatthe mart pnd and ed by be] esrb ka or hat ft be gin atonal ime in wis to abit eprcentain”. “Tefen bee view, the appropiate course of action is or this Honourable Court to decide whether or not the report shoul! be eleased or whether I should fiat be gives ational tine svithin which to submit my representations In my answering affidavit to the DA's intervention aplication, Lndiated that Fou’ anowering affdavie in the Van Rooyen applicaion contains a contain a that he alleges that the Public Protector iin the process of completing her separ hut, on the other hand, alk alleges that the Public Protector ha ready finalised and signed off the report In the Public Protectors answering affidavit in this application, the new incumbent of the office of the Public Protector states that she has been 1" » advised that Av Madonsela fated the report on 14 October 2016 sod that the report has been signed (pasa G1 tead with para 8). The aforementioned advice could only have been given to her by Fourie becuse 4 confirmatory affidavit fom Fourie is attached. ‘Therefore, when the new Public Protect tats thatthe epost has been prepared and finalised by her predecessor, it cin only be dane onthe advice of Fouie. The new Public Protector doesnot conclusively state thatthe zepos is final till ualsr whether the repot i ol or nt beeause the contadition contained in Foutie’s affidavit inthe Van Rooyen application has aot been aie inthis application. ‘The only way to determine whether the reports final ono efor dhe Public Protector to say so ia no uncertain terms. this sega, I invite het to do so. 1 alto invite Fourie to explin the contradiction contained in his affidavit ia the Van Rooyen application. 1 attach a copy cf Four’ afidavitin the Van Rooyen application as annexure RAL" hereto. 1 nw dal avian with the allepstions contsined in the DA's founding application. This afdavit is not intended to deal with of traverse all allegations in the answering affidevit bat chat tis reply must be read inthe light of the fits as conttned in dhe founding afidave in relation to this urgent application, ‘Ad parageaph 28 thereof | 13. deny the content of this paragraph, 14, “Primacy eject” ie not the same as an “Smplicted person”. Subject as defined in the Concise Oxford Fnglah Dicsonary 104 Ton, seisd, 2002, means “person to thing that being discussed dele with or that fives rise to someting. “lempcste” as defined in the Concise Oxford aglsh Dicionay 10% Eon, revised, 2002 means “show tobe involved 15, Te is cleat from the admited facts of the Public Protector that for the purposes of sction 9 of the Public Protector Act, 1 became an implicated person on 2 October 2016, ‘Ad paragraph 29 31 thereof 16, deny the conentof these paragraphs 17, ‘The DA has edmitted that it has no knowledge of the section 79) notice ‘questions of its contents, Therefore lis allegations which are based om the section 79) questions ate mere speculation and conjecture and should be struck out om that bai 18, tis clear thatthe Public Protector has aot taken issue withthe section 70) ‘Ad paragraph 33 thereof 19, Tris clear thatthe DA admits that I ave the sight to just administrative ‘ction. They contend that [have been given a reasonable opportuniy 0 answer those questions. Again, the DA spesks fom no knowledge of the facts ofthis mater. The Public Protector has admitted tothe fact chat the section 79) noice was only provided on 2 October 2016 and therefore dese seas not a reasonable opportunity for me to anewer meaning the questions ‘Ad paragraph 35 thereof 20, T admit hat all state oxgans have a consttational obligation t0 assist the Public Protector 21, ‘The sights T seek to protect ate those that attach to a person when they ‘become an implicated person ia terms of section 7 of the Public Protector Act ‘Ad paragraph 37 thereof 2 2% | deny the contnt of this paragraph. “The Public Protector in het eter of 11 October 2016, being annexure “K” to the founding affidavit, provides a legitimate expectation that I would be fiven the sight o atk questions though the Puble Protector. Paragraph 1 of that eter specify stats that “Tha fad orn te questions ou ish pst ew ae opeae fa me. sal mae adrian o» sch questions cordon withthe Pale Prostar Ac" ‘Ad paragraph 38 thereof 24. 2. 1 deny the coment of this pasageaph. cis clear tat the Public Protector has admitted that the briefing session on 6 October 2016 had changed to an ‘opportunity Forme to answer questions. Again, the DA speaks from a posiion of not knowing the actual facts and Lsisits llegatons on speculation and conjecture ‘Ad paragraph 39 thercof 26, Tdeny the content of this paragsaph. ‘The Public Protector has admited his fact ‘Ad paragraph 40 thereof 27, deny the content of this parageaph, Laver that in onder to ask questions of any wines iit necessary to establish what was said, which in the context of thie case would be to obtain the record of the interview or the statement relied upon. ‘Ad paragraph 42 thereof 28, Tdeny the content of this paragraph. 29, ‘The DA confuses being the subject of an investigation and being an Jmplicated pesson in an investigation, ‘Ad pacageaph 46:2 theccot 30. I deny that I chote not to take advantage of the opportunity to make ph sh, representations 10 31, “The Public Protector admitted that I sought an opportunity to make representations and alto admitted to giving me an oppostunty to provide questions ‘Ad paragraph 49 thereof 32, [deny the content ofthis paragraph 3. ‘The DA has act seen the two sets of questions provided to me and therefore cannot determine whether a reasonable opportanity was provided to me, WHEREFORE 1 persist with the eit as contained in dhe Notice of Motion JACOB GEDLEYIHLEKISA ZUMA [tea certify thatthe deponent as acknowledged that e knows and understands the contents of this affidavit, which was signed and sworn 10 before me at OE To on tin te BE ty of LASER o/b 2016, the segulations contained in Goveanment Notice No 3619 of 21 July 1972 and No 1648 of 19 August 1977 having been complied with iSSIONTROF OR Velay Yj PORE VE A Rca BRUCE,

You might also like