Lavish upgrades to Nkandla unjustifiable

22 July 2015

Today, Democratic Alliance (DA) members on the Nkandla Ad Hoc Committee were finally given the opportunity to enter the palatial residence of President Jacob Zuma at Nkandla, and assess the nature of the upgrades to the premises first-hand.

Having toured the extravagant property, it is clear that the upgrades far exceed the minimum requirement to secure the private home of a President of the Republic, and would not have been undertaken to that scale were it not for the President's intervention. There is direct causality between the escalation of the scope of Nkandla, and Jacob Zuma’s occupation of the Office of the President. 

Everything we have seen today reinforces our stance that President Zuma clearly unduly benefitted as the Public Protector found. The report erroneously produced by the Police Minister must summarily be rejected on the grounds that it is both irrational and at odds with the constitution.

In his report Minister Nhleko absolved the President of any liability for the cost of the upgrades to Nkandla by determining that the kraal with culvert and chicken run, swimming pool, amphitheatre and visitor’s centre were all “security features.”

Based on what we have seen today it is clear that the Minister began with this biased conclusion as his point of departure and to this end set out to create a case in support of it. 

Our direct observations only serve to underscore the findings made by the Public Protector, Adv Thuli Madonsela, as well as the remedial actions she ordered, that these upgrades – amongst others – cannot rationally be claimed necessary for security.

If the upgrades were indeed necessary for security; their installation was not a cost-effective use of public funds as they were far in excess of the minimum standard required to meet security needs. The construction of a swimming pool with surrounding entertainment area cannot be accepted as the most appropriate means to address concerns regarding fire safety, nor were the houses constructed for the SANDF at a cost of R6 million each at all reflective of this exorbitant price tag. If the purpose of the upgrades was to secure the President, the South African public did not get value for their money. But rather, unfairly, footed the bill for trimmings that the President himself must be held liable for.

Our visit made it clear that the scope of the project was never to secure the President’s private residence, but to upgrade it to the status of a Presidential Residence at a grossly inflated cost. Yet as a private residence of the Zuma family, the homestead and all its features will remain their property upon completion of the President’s term in office. This is an entirely unjustifiable requirement and unnecessary expense and the Police Minister, try as he might, cannot convince us otherwise.

The need for expensive mood and event lighting, expansive paving and landscaping, a visitor’s centre and top-class clinic are all made redundant by the fact that the residence does not need to meet executive standards as the President’s duties as Head of State can be exercised at any one of the 3 official residences the President already has access to in his official capacity.

The only plausible assumption is that President Zuma misused the power of his office to expand the scope of the project for his personal benefit. It is apparent that this abuse of power resulted in the kraal with culvert and chicken run, swimming pool, amphitheatre and visitor’s centre being constructed to luxurious standards at great cost.

With national unemployment at 36.1%, and millions of South Africans going to be hungry every night, it is an insult to the South African people that a quarter of a billion Rand of public funds was spent on the private home. 

Now more than ever, the DA remains steadfast in our belief that the report by the Police Minister is not only unconstitutional, but absurd in its reasoning and lacking in any rational basis.

We will continue to fight to see that the remedial action taken by the Public Protector is upheld and that the President repays a fair portion of the undue benefit he received.

Statement issued by DA leader Mmusi Maimane, July 22 2015