EFF call for Madonsela's Nkandla report to be prioritised

The EFF also says that order should give Zuma 30 days to pay back his portion of the Nkandla costs.

A view of the homestead of South African President Jacob Zuma in Nkandla in January 2014. Picture: AFP.

JOHANNESBURG - While Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's told the Constitutional Court she stands by her Nkandla findings that President Jacob Zuma must pay back some of the money spent on his home, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) says her Nkandla report must remain binding on Zuma.

They've both formally written to the Constitutional Court to give their formal reaction to Zuma's proposal that the finance minister and the Auditor General decide how much he should repay over Nkandla.

In a document it would like to be made an order of court, the EFF says judges should find that the president failed to implement Madonsela's directions and thus he was in breach of his oath of office and duties under the Constitution.

LISTEN: Malema rejects Zuma's Nkandla settlement offer.

The party also says that order should give Zuma 30 days to pay back his portion of the Nkandla costs after the Auditor General and the Treasury have made their determinations.

In her papers, the public protector says she still wants the remedial action outlined in her Nkandla report to the implemented - except that she agrees it would no longer be appropriate for the police to be part of determining how much Zuma should pay.

She also says she still wants to present arguments about her legal powers and whether her the remedial action she orders must be implemented by government.

Whatever the outcome of Zuma's bid to settle the Nkandla spending dispute, Parliament still has unfinished business regarding the matter.

African National Congress (ANC) MPs used their majority to push through two reports that effectively cleared the president and shifted the blame to rogue officials, Zuma's architect and a lack of controls.

But some of Madonsela's findings were not dealt with by the special committees that produced the reports.

Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, is insisting the public protector did not find the president guilty of any wrongdoing.

"There has been no adverse finding made by the public protector that renders the president culpable on any matter."

WATCH: Zuma lashes out at opposition.

But this is contradicted by Madonsela's report, which she released in March 2014.

In it, she says that Zuma failed to act to protect state resources and that this was a violation of the executive code of ethics.

The Institute for Security Studies' Judith February said, "That has not ever been explored and the president has also not responded to that - and, interestingly enough, Parliament has also not taken that matter further."

February says the Nkandla debacle has weakened Parliament, which, as part of its Constitutional mandate, is expected to hold the executive arm of government to account.


Editor of Netwerk 24, Adriaan Basson, has confirmed that legal action is being taken in the High Court to gain access to the Special Investigating Unit's draft reports in the Nkandla investigation.

It's been claimed that the final report on Zuma's residence was sanitised and did not reflect the full findings of the investigation into what was spent and who is liable.

Basson says he waiting for the SIU to respond to their request to see the draft reports on the issue.

He says they must be released to the public.

"I'm confident in the sourcing we have that there is reason to believe that we should access the draft reports and argue that if the SIU have nothing to hide then they should give us the draft reports."

Earlier today, the EFF leader said he also had questions around the final Nkadla report.

"We said in Parliament that the report is manipulated and I know for a fact that I came across a genuine report which exposed all those shenanigans."

WATCH: Malema calls for Zuma to step down.

To read the Public Protector's full report on spending at Nkandla, _ click here._

To read the letter from the Constitutional Court, _ click here._