NEWS ANALYSIS: MPs’ visit to Nkandla reveals wastage on scale previously not understood
WHILE it has always been the contention that the R246m spent on President Jacob Zuma’s private home at Nkandla was exorbitant, it was assumed that the security measures there were state of the art. But an on-site inspection revealed cost escalation and wastage on a scale previously not understood.
Startled MPs who visited the homestead found shoddy workmanship and security computers and equipment still in boxes while some buildings leaked and were cracked. It was the first time that independent opposition MPs were able to visit the property.
But their discoveries immediately raised the question of where the R246m had gone and who was responsible for Nkandla.
Police Minister Nathi Nhleko and his colleague at Public Works, Thulas Nxesi, have been called to appear before Parliament’s Nkandla committee to answer further questions that will centre on who was responsible for the debacle.
Clearly the Presidency is in damage control mode, as evidenced by an unprecedented media tour of the property held on Sunday.
Opposition MPs insist that there has to be political accountability, perhaps going all the way to the president himself — the African National Congress in the committee is poised to lay the blame for the overspending, theft and wastage on state officials and contractors.
At the centre of the allegations of cost escalation and wastage is Mr Zuma’s architect, Minenhle Makhanya, who is facing a civil claim for R155m as the Special Investigating Unit tries to recover some of the misspent money. Mr Zuma apparently introduced Mr Makhanya to the Public Works team and the architect effectively became the project manager.
But last week a letter emerged, which some have characterised as the "smoking gun", that finally ties Mr Zuma to having approved construction for police and defence force housing outside the homestead boundary.
In the letter, a senior police superintendent LF Linde says "by instruction of the state president, president Zuma, the existing house at Nkandla currently accommodate (sic) SAPS members must be converted as part of the president’s household.
"To cater for the needs of the members currently accommodated in the house as refer above (sic), additional bachelor flats need to be added to the needs assessment previously provided to your department."
The letter, dated October 2009 and released by Mr Nhleko last week, refers to a house on the property previously used to accommodate police. However, the house is now in the middle of what appears to be an entertainment area around the swimming pool.
As a result of the instruction arising from the letter, R135m was spent on houses and flats for police, at a unit cost of about R6m, when property experts have said the housing should not have cost more than R500,000 per unit.
Democratic Alliance MP Glynnis Breytenbach asked whether Mr Nhleko could be recalled to appear before the Nkandla committee because questions remained.
Committee chairman Cedric Frolick said Mr Nhleko had indicated he was willing to return to the committee to answer further questions.
However, ANC MP Thandi Mahambehlala said the letter referred to an existing building that had been used to house police providing protection for the president and was not part of new construction at Nkandla. She said the issue was either Mr Zuma buying the building or it being demolished.
She also launched a scathing attack on Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on Nkandla, saying it had "misled" South Africans on what had been built.
At issue for the African National Congress (ANC) was that a retaining wall with a reinforced roadway was described as an amphitheatre, a small reception room as a visitors’ centre and a fire pool as a swimming pool.
ANC MP Mmamoloko Kubayi and her colleagues agreed that there was wastage because there was no security or comfort at Nkandla. This was a direct reference to Ms Madonsela’s report on Nkandla entitled "Secure in Comfort", which found that Mr Zuma had unduly benefited from the spending and should repay some of the money used for non-security features.
Mr Nhleko’s report contradicts this and states that Mr Zuma must not repay any money.
But one thing is certain: despite ANC MPs’ attempts to absolve Mr Zuma, the whole thing is not going away.
The question of what Mr Zuma knew and when, will continue to be asked and the president and Parliament should prepare themselves for another rough session when he answers questions in the National Assembly next Thursday.
He is certain to again face a barrage of demands from the Economic Freedom Fighters that he "pay back the money".
WHILE it has always been the contention that the R246m spent on President Jacob Zuma’s private home at Nkandla was exorbitant, it was assumed that the security measures there were state of the art. But an on-site inspection revealed cost escalation and wastage on a scale previously not understood.
Startled MPs who visited the homestead found shoddy workmanship and security computers and equipment still in boxes while some buildings leaked and were cracked. It was the first time that independent opposition MPs were able to visit the property.
But their discoveries immediately raised the question of where the R246m had gone and who was responsible for Nkandla.
Police Minister Nathi Nhleko and his colleague at Public Works, Thulas Nxesi, have been called to appear before Parliament’s Nkandla committee to answer further questions that will centre on who was responsible for the debacle.
Clearly the Presidency is in damage control mode, as evidenced by an unprecedented media tour of the property held on Sunday.
Opposition MPs insist that there has to be political accountability, perhaps going all the way to the president himself — the African National Congress in the committee is poised to lay the blame for the overspending, theft and wastage on state officials and contractors.
At the centre of the allegations of cost escalation and wastage is Mr Zuma’s architect, Minenhle Makhanya, who is facing a civil claim for R155m as the Special Investigating Unit tries to recover some of the misspent money. Mr Zuma apparently introduced Mr Makhanya to the Public Works team and the architect effectively became the project manager.
But last week a letter emerged, which some have characterised as the "smoking gun", that finally ties Mr Zuma to having approved construction for police and defence force housing outside the homestead boundary.
In the letter, a senior police superintendent LF Linde says "by instruction of the state president, president Zuma, the existing house at Nkandla currently accommodate (sic) SAPS members must be converted as part of the president’s household.
"To cater for the needs of the members currently accommodated in the house as refer above (sic), additional bachelor flats need to be added to the needs assessment previously provided to your department."
The letter, dated October 2009 and released by Mr Nhleko last week, refers to a house on the property previously used to accommodate police. However, the house is now in the middle of what appears to be an entertainment area around the swimming pool.
As a result of the instruction arising from the letter, R135m was spent on houses and flats for police, at a unit cost of about R6m, when property experts have said the housing should not have cost more than R500,000 per unit.
Democratic Alliance MP Glynnis Breytenbach asked whether Mr Nhleko could be recalled to appear before the Nkandla committee because questions remained.
Committee chairman Cedric Frolick said Mr Nhleko had indicated he was willing to return to the committee to answer further questions.
However, ANC MP Thandi Mahambehlala said the letter referred to an existing building that had been used to house police providing protection for the president and was not part of new construction at Nkandla. She said the issue was either Mr Zuma buying the building or it being demolished.
She also launched a scathing attack on Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on Nkandla, saying it had "misled" South Africans on what had been built.
At issue for the African National Congress (ANC) was that a retaining wall with a reinforced roadway was described as an amphitheatre, a small reception room as a visitors’ centre and a fire pool as a swimming pool.
ANC MP Mmamoloko Kubayi and her colleagues agreed that there was wastage because there was no security or comfort at Nkandla. This was a direct reference to Ms Madonsela’s report on Nkandla entitled "Secure in Comfort", which found that Mr Zuma had unduly benefited from the spending and should repay some of the money used for non-security features.
Mr Nhleko’s report contradicts this and states that Mr Zuma must not repay any money.
But one thing is certain: despite ANC MPs’ attempts to absolve Mr Zuma, the whole thing is not going away.
The question of what Mr Zuma knew and when, will continue to be asked and the president and Parliament should prepare themselves for another rough session when he answers questions in the National Assembly next Thursday.
He is certain to again face a barrage of demands from the Economic Freedom Fighters that he "pay back the money".
Post a comment