The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

My written  question to President Zuma asking him how much he will be personally contributing to the revamp of his Nkandla home has been thrown out by Parliament’s questions office. This decision, I believe, sets a dangerous precedent in allowing Parliament to protect the President from answering difficult questions, and undermines the objective of written questions, which is to ensure that the executive is held to account.
          
I have re-submitted the question to the parliamentary questions office, together with an additional two questions directed to President Zuma and Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Nosiviwe Noluthando Mapisa-Nqakula. I will also write to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Max Sisulu, and request that he, as the presiding officer, make a decision on the validity of the question I submitted.
         
The argument that has been employed by the question’s office that the question strayed into President Zuma’s private life I believe is countered by the precedent that questions can be asked to a member of the executive on a statement they have made. My question, as submitted, clearly referenced the statement voluntarily made by the President at the New Age Business Briefing on Friday, 11 October 2012, where he announced that he would be covering the bulk of the expenses himself.
          
The two additional questions to the President and Minister of Defence will ask whether the President received notice in terms of Section 3 of the National Key Points Act of 1980, under which it is alleged that his home has been registered, to cover expenses regarding the security of his homestead. This provision clearly states that the owner would have to cover the expenses, or a proportion of it, as decided by the Minister. I will further question the Minister of Defence and Police whether this notice was issued, and whether a decision was accordingly made not to have the President cover the expenses, and if so, why.
          
It is essential that Parliament performs its constitutional obligation to hold the executive to account to the best of its ability. South Africans want answers on the Nkandlagate scandal, and as Members of Parliament we must use all mechanisms, including questions, to get these answers.

The DA will not stop fighting until we get to the bottom of this scandal and President Zuma is made to answer for why state money is being used to benefit himself personally.