News reports have established that the Public Protector did not know that her remedial actions were binding. This comes after the Concourt made a ruling on Nkandla saga.
Recent reports are accusing the Advocate Thuli Madonsela for contradicting her own statements during submissions to the Concourt.
In an affidavit made and attested to by Ms Madonsela on 8 April 2014 in the case of The Minister of Home Affairs vs the Public Protector (case number 76554/13 in the North Gauteng High Court), the Public Protector stated at paragraph 60:
"The Constitution and the Public Protector Act do not provide any mechanism to enforce remedial actions taken by the Public Protector".
In the next paragraph she continues to say:
"The remedy does not bind the applicants. It cannot because there are no provisions in law that make the remedy binding."
Modonsela continues to contradict herself. In paragraph 62 she states:
"While the Public Protector cannot and does not make binding orders, its recommendations should nevertheless be respected".
Interestingly enough she also argued in paragraph 19 of her affidavit - that the Minister of Home Affairs should not have taken her on review and that the matter:
"Could and should have been debated in Parliament... The objections of the Minister could have been raised there, and if it was deemed necessary, Parliament could have determined whether I exceeded my functions or not. I submit that that is the more proper means of addressing any concerns in my report and that it was improper for the applicants to approach a court..."
