African National Congress (ANC) MPs on Tuesday moved to absolve President Jacob Zuma of any wrongdoing in the Nkandla controversy as they unilaterally pursued Parliament's consideration of the matter following an opposition walkout.

They said there was no evidence that Zuma asked for luxuries to be added to his private home in KwaZulu-Natal, or knew about an abuse of public funds as the cost of so-called security upgrades to the estate soared to R246-million.

"What comes out very strongly is that the president did not request anything and the president did not receive any money," ANC MP Mmamoloko Kubayi said.

The opposition withdrew from the ad hoc committee on Nkandla last week in protest at the ruling party's reluctance to enforce Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's finding that Zuma must pay for part of the project.

At the start of Tuesday's meeting, senior ANC MP Mathole Motshekga reiterated his view that Madonsela's work was subject to parliamentary oversight and that the opposition was wilfully misreading the law.

"I want to lay this matter to rest," Motshekga said.

"The remedial actions recommended by the public protector are not binding on Parliament because if it were so it would mean that the public protector was elevated to the jurisdiction of Parliament," he added.

"Such a thing would be absurd".

Motshekga then proceeded to contradict Madonsela's conclusion that Zuma had violated the Executive Ethics Code by failing to contain state spending and unduly benefiting from it.

He said she used the words "may have" in her report released in March, and therefore he believed: "One should be upfront here and say the president has not violated any code of conduct.

"Even to begin to suggest payment by the president, of anything, begins to seem absurd."

He went further to suggest that it was wrong for Madonsela to order anybody to implement her findings before they were considered by Parliament, and to have given Zuma 14 days to respond to her report on Nkandla released in March.

"It is my considered view that chapter nine institutions cannot and should not issue instructions to comply within a certain period."

Zuma, in a letter to Madonsela last month, asserted he was not obliged to "rubberstamp" her report -- titled "Secure in Comfort" -- after she noted he had failed to say how he intended to give effect to it.

Last week, the Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Freedom Front Plus, Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party called in vain for the committee to get independent legal opinion to settle the dispute between themselves on the one hand, and the president and the ANC on the other, on the powers given to the watchdog office by the Constitution.

They said they would await the outcome of a Western Cape High Court case expected to vindicate their view, but would if necessary take the matter to the Constitutional Court.

Motshekga said it was a delaying tactic and affront to the doctrine of separation of powers to ask the courts to prescribe to Parliament how to interpret the law.

In a further comment, he said the tug of war over the powers of the public protector pointed to "a lack of policy clarity" which Parliament would need to clarify -- raising again the spectre of a review of the powers of the public protector.

The committee concluded on Tuesday that it was ready to start drafting its report to hand to the National Assembly by the set deadline of October 24.

ANC deputy Chief Whip Doris Dlakude made clear that the ruling party would not entertain the opposition's suggestion that the committee call Zuma to provide more clarity on questions Madonsela said he failed to answer fully during her investigation.

She said it was obvious that "serious looting of the state, serious corruption" had been committed, but that officials had acted on their own accord without consent from the president when it came to additions to Nkandla that had nothing to do with security.

These included a chicken run, a cattle kraal, a tuck shop, a swimming pool, and an amphitheatre.