su-Zuma DIY because anybody can

Nkaandlaa Heh heh hey HAAAi

Cape Town Stadium: FIFA icon or albatross

Cape Town - An albatross around the necks of ratepayers, or a valuable and iconic asset? The Cape Town Stadium, running at an annual loss of about R40 million, was described as both during Tuesday’s full council meeting where it was agreed that the current management plan should be extended by a year to June 2016.

Councillors alluded to the recent Fifa corruption scandal during their debate on the stadium’s future, with Andre Fourie of the Freedom Front Plus saying that Fifa president Sepp Blatter took billions of rands out of the country, leaving Cape Town and other municipalities with massive bills for the stadiums that were built.

He said the consortium of Stade de France and the local SAIL Group pulled out if its management agreement with the city soon after the World Cup when it realised the stadium would never be filled to capacity.

Fourie said it was unlikely that the formation of a municipal entity to manage the stadium would be the panacea the city needed to make the facility financially viable.

“This albatross - despite the thousands that it cost the city to build - is costing ratepayers in unaffordable monthly operational and maintenance costs.”

Fourie said the only way the city could avoid any further financial loss was by selling the stadium to SA Rugby for R1.

“Acknowledge that the stadium was a mistake. Accept that you are not going to make it commercially viable without an anchor tenant. Cut your losses - and the albatross around the neck of Cape Town’s ratepayers - and offer the stadium to Newlands for R1.”

Demetrius Qually, of the DA, said that although the Fifa scandal had tarnished the World Cup legacy, the stadium remained a valuable and iconic asset.

There was also “justifiable” concern about the long-term viability of the stadium. However, the business plan being finalised, which included the lifting of restrictive environmental conditions, would make it sustainable.

“We are confident that the stadium and Green Point Urban Park can be both viable and financially sustainable,” said Qually.

Grant Haskin, of the African Christian Democratic Party, agreed that the management of the stadium had to continue without interruption while the business plan was being finalised.

But he said the city had been promising “stadium profitability” since 2009. “How then can one blame irate ratepayers for their calls to rather demolish the stadium instead of wasting their money? What was a proud moment in Cape Town’s history has become a furious embarrassment for the city and its people.”

Majidie Abrahams, of the ANC, argued that extension of the management arrangements without clarity on the business plan could put the city at risk of spending and losing money for another three years.

But mayor Patricia de Lille pointed out that the management plan had been extended to June 2016, and not 2018 as initially proposed, and included a condition that a progress report on the commercialisation of the precinct would be submitted to council in March next year.

Garreth Bloor, mayoral committee member for economic development, tourism and events, said the rezoning process was already under way. Demolition of the stadium was not an option, he said.

The city had been advised of 18 revenue streams that would generate a profit for the next 10 to 15 years.

This excluded any revenue that would come in from an anchor tenant.

He said the naming rights alone would secure between R5m and R10m in revenue for the city. The tabled revenue budget for the next financial year is R14m.

But Bloor allayed fears about the discrepancy between the stadium’s projected costs and income.

Although the tabled operating budget expenditure for 2015/2016 was R138m, limited commercial rights would bring this amount down to R34.2m. “The commercial rights process has already started. We will make it work and we will continue the (World Cup) legacy,” he said.

[like a mountain goat skipping through the diaspora with donations...]

anel.lewis@inl.co.za

- Cape Argus

South Africa's 'brazen cover-up' of Zuma's home upgrade

The offence itself was bad enough - an orgy of overspending by obsequious officials and conniving contractors who managed to spend 246m rand ($21.7m, £14.3m) of public money lavishly upgrading South African President Jacob's Zuma's private homestead, Nkandla.

That is nearly 10 times what taxpayers spent on Nelson Mandela's two homes, and 20 times what it cost to secure Thabo Mbeki's house.

As we now know, Mr Zuma's "essential security upgrades" included a swimming pool, an amphitheatre, a chicken run and a visitors' centre. A fairly humble collection of traditional buildings on a rural hillside has been transformed into something more like a luxury holiday resort.

But as is so often the case in politics, it is the cover up - long, venomous, hair-splitting and sanctimonious - that has been most revealing, and most depressing.

Some of Mr Zuma's closest advisers - those with an eye on image and votes, rather than on real or imaginary security concerns - were urging him from the very beginning to apologise for any errors and to volunteer immediately to pay for any unwarranted expenditure.

The scandal could have ended in a week, and the president could even have emerged with his status enhanced.

Instead Mr Zuma and his supporters have sought to undermine the credibility of South Africa's public protector - whose exhaustively forensic report recommended that he repay some of the money - and have ridiculed the opposition for seeking to turn Nkandla into a presidency-defining scandal about accountability and corruption.

Now the police minister - a man whose career is, of course, entirely dependent on Mr Zuma's goodwill - has produced his own report, which spells out, in inadvertently comic detail, how conveniently the mosaic-inlayed swimming pool can double as an essential source of water for fighting fires.

The minister's unsurprising conclusion - Mr Zuma should not pay back a penny.

Comic moment

President Zuma did not hide his sense of vindication.

In parliament this week he openly mocked the opposition's attempts to pronounce the word "Nkandla" in a not-so-subtle hint that it was white politicians who were driving the criticism.

It was a confident, boisterous, divisive, and - at least for his supporters - genuinely comic moment.

And there is no doubt that Mr Zuma's jibes will have gone down well with his base.

- BBC

Zuma on being a dictator and building your own house

If Jacob Zuma was a dictator, this is how he would run things:

• Laziness would be a thing of the past;
• Idle youth would be put to work; and
• No more freebies.

Addressing delegates of the SA Local Government Association in Johannesburg yesterday, Zuma said a creeping laziness had entered South African society because "we are free" of white rule.

Zuma said he would relish a chance to rule for an extra year with absolute authority to make South Africans more productive.

Democracy was proving a stumbling block, the president said.

"Sometimes I worry when people demand things for free, even things they can do for themselves.

"If I was a dictator, I would change a few things ...but this is a democratic country."

Zuma told a story from his time in exile in an unnamed African country.

He said he could not help but notice that the workers were going about their duties without any urgency.

When he asked why, Zuma said he was told that workers no longer saw it as necessary to work faster or harder because they were free of the white man.

Zuma said he had grown weary of youths asking for government handouts, saying they should build their own homes and acquire employable skills.

Last year, Human Settlements Minister Lindiwe Sisulu said her department would no longer provide state-subsidised houses to people under the age of 40.

Zuma also called on municipalities to hire competent staff.

"There should be no compromise in ensuring that officials have the necessary qualifications."

The president also queried the use of consultants, who cost the government more than R30-billion in the 2013/14 financial year.

He said: "If those of us who are employed to do work with specific skills now use consultants, what then are we employed to do?"

Zuma also spoke out against municipal officials who hired family and friends with no skills.

"Don't employ people because you feel for them or they are your friend or cousin. Employ people to do work," said Zuma.

- Timeslive

NATIONAL KEY PONT shmeepoint

Nkandla 11 won’t plead guilty to pending charges

Cape Town - The 11 Department of Public Works officials accused of flouting procurement procedures in relation to the upgrading of President Jacob Zuma’s controversial Nkandla homestead in KwaZulu-Natal will not settle with the state by pleading guilty.

According to the Sunday Independent, the officials, all represented by the Public Servants Association (PSA), are reportedly determined to allow the internal disciplinary hearings – set for next month - to go ahead.

Claude Naker, PSA manager, told the newspaper that the officials “do not fear anything at this stage and would want the process to continue so that they can prove their innocence”.

This comes after a 12th official, director of projects, Itumeleng Molosi, was handed a two month suspension after pleading guilty to charges relating to the Nkandla scandal.

Initial reports, as reported by News24, state that the remaining 11 officials could follow suit. The PSA has however, put this speculation to rest.

Molosi - represented by Nehawu at his hearing, served a brief spell as department of public works KZN director towards the end of the construction of the R246m upgrades of Zuma’s Nkandla residence.

Two-month suspension

At a closed hearing in Durban, Molosi admitted to failing to ensure that all Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) procurement processes were followed. He accepted a two-month unpaid suspension as part of his penalty, but with his job and pension intact.

Molosi would not comment on whether he took a deal to save his pension and referred all queries to the department of public works (DPW). But he did say that other officials implicated haven’t spoken to him since he admitted his guilt.

Another official facing sanction said the first he heard about Molosi’s deal was when it was published in City Press.

Naiker meanwhile said Molosi’s deal “surprised us”.

“As it stands, our 12 clients have all stated they are not guilty.

“Once the disciplinary hearings commence and we see the evidence, we will have a better idea [as to what our members’ options are],” he said.

He said if the DPW had strong evidence against Molosi, then his deal was “a good result” as his pension and job are still intact.

Naiker said the majority of officials face charges similar to Molosi’s.

A court application by Media24 to gain access to the process is pending.

But Media24 lawyer Willem de Klerk said nothing stops the accused officials and the DPW “from settling at any time, even though the media application is pending”.

Molosi was a member of the department’s bid adjudication committee, accused by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) of financial misconduct and irregular expenditure.

The SIU found that Molosi approved a “negotiated procurement strategy” instead of an open tender system by which tenders are advertised.

- News24

Nkandla officials seek a deal

The 11 Public Works officials charged for rampant overspending and flouting of tender regulations on Nkandla may now all plead guilty, seeking to protect their pensions and avoid protracted hearings. Earlier, they had indicated they would plead not guilty.

It emerged at the weekend that Pretoria director of projects Itumeleng Molosi was let off with a two-month suspension without pay and a final written warning after pleading guilty to irregularly appointing contractors and flouting procurement procedures.

Had Molosi been found guilty rather than signing a plea deal he would have forfeited his pension.

Opposition parties have reacted strongly, calling for the officials to stick to their original not guilty stance, and saying the guilty plea would not exonerate President Jacob Zuma.

On Monday Public Servants’ Association labour officer Roshan Lil-Ruthan said he thought Molosi’s penalty was harsh because “none of the employees benefited financially from the project and they told the Special Investigating Unit that they were pressured by their supervisors to fast-track the project”.

The disciplinary hearings began in Durban in September and Molosi’s case was the first to be concluded.

T

he SIU report found that Molosi and his colleagues Rakesh Dhaniram, Bheki Dlamini and Thuli Ngubane approved the appointment of contractor E Magubane CC in June 2011.

The contractor was to be paid R9.6 million but ended up receiving R10.8m for installing electronic security systems at Zuma’s rural KwaZulu-Natal home.

In September Lil-Ruthan told The Mercury that all the officials intended pleading not guilty and that the disciplinary hearings were nothing more than the department looking for “scapegoats” to blame for the scandal.

But on Monday he said this could change.

“I’m not sure whether some of them will choose to plead guilty because I haven’t met them recently since we (the PSA) closed for the holidays,” he said.

Lil-Ruthan said Molosi’s plea was a “brave step” and he thought the co-accused might consider the same route to fast-track their cases.

“These hearings have brought tension and anxiety to our members. They obviously want the whole thing to be over, but it is also important to consider the future implications of either pleading guilty or being found guilty,” he said.

The PSA would now analyse transcripts of Molosi’s case to see if the remaining officials were implicated in his plea and if they needed to re-strategise their defence.

The EFF’s Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said it was “a travesty” that Zuma was being “protected” through the charges brought against the officials. He urged the remaining 11 officials not to plead guilty, pledging the support of the EFF and other opposition parties.

“In the end, Zuma will not be held accountable. The issue is being buried by destroying people’s careers. We reaffirm our position that the officials must not stand down and instead stand their ground. The opposition parties, including the EFF, are willing to stand by them; they do not have to be scared. They must stand up for the truth.”

His sentiments were echoed by the IFP’s Narend Singh, who said the guilty plea did not exonerate Zuma from paying for non-security upgrades.

“Not all the work that was done was part of the security upgrades and the president must do the right thing and acknowledge that he unduly benefited from the project and pay back some of the taxpayers’ money,” he said.

The DA’s spokesman on public works, James Masango, said while the party acknowledged the findings of the SIU, it wanted the recommendations in the initial report issued by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela to be adhered to.

“The junior officials’ guilty plea will be for not following open tender processes and obviously that was against the regulations. However, we want Zuma to take responsibility for the money that was spent on things like the swimming pool, kraal and chicken run which had nothing to do with security,” he said.

ANC spokesman Zizi Kodwa said Molosi’s suspension was welcomed and dealt with what the party viewed as the unlawful escalation of costs.

“The suspension of an official, or officials, is what we called for. Someone must be responsible for the unexpected escalation,” Kodwa said.

- The Mercury

Civil servant suspended over Nkandla

A senior public works department employee has become the first official involved in the upgrades of President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead to take the fall for the R246 million project, City Press reported on Sunday.

Itumeleng Molosi, 58, director of projects, pleaded guilty to irregularly appointing contractors and flouting procurement procedures, the newspaper reported, according to information from "department insiders".

Molosi would keep his job after the department imposed a two-month suspension without pay and a final written warning.

Molosi signed the deal last Monday after writing to the department about his intention to plead guilty.

Molosi reportedly blamed officials, including himself, who felt pressured into cutting corners and taking short cuts because the project involved the president's home.

Eleven other officials, all represented by the Public Servants Association (PSA), may sign similar deals to avoid lengthy hearings, the newspaper reported.

Roshan Lil-Ruthan, the PSA labour officer representing the officials, said his clients intended to tell the hearings they also felt pressured into speeding up the Nkandla upgrades.

- Timeslive

Zuma: Nkandla upgrades not my fault

President Jacob Zuma says none of the Nkandla reports, including the public protector's, found him at fault for upgrades at the compound.

President Jacob Zuma on Sunday said all three reports conducted on security upgrades at his Nkandla homestead found no fault in him.

In a pre-recorded interview with the SABC, Zuma said initially, the allegations were that he had abused R250-million of taxpayers money.

“The reality is, the president did absolutely nothing wrong. “There is not a single one [report] that found anything wrong that the president had done,” Zuma said, referring to himself in third person. He said even the report compiled by public protector Thuli Madonsela found no fault in him.

Undue benefits

Madonsela’s report had stated that Zuma and his family had unduly benefited from some of the upgrades at his home and suggested that he pay back some of the money.

“But the president did not ask for any benefits from anyone,” Zuma told the SABC, He was still awaiting a report back from an ad hoc committee which was tasked to look into Madonsela’s report before deciding on a way forward. 

Public spending on security upgrades at Zuma’s home have turned into one of the major controversies of the Zuma presidency, as costs escalated to R246-million. It emerged the project included a pool (dubbed a “fire pool” by government), an amphitheatre, and a chicken run.

In August, Zuma’s personal architect Minenhle Makhanya was served with a R155-million civil claim by the Special Investigating Unit for the R246-million upgrades at Nkandla.

Makahanya later opposed the claim.

Differences in the reports of the public protector and the interministerial task team has cast doubts on the latter’s work. – Sapa, Staff reporter.

Nkandla debacle takes a deadly turn

Two close family members of high-profile people linked to the allegedly irregular multimillion-rand upgrades to President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead have been murdered within a month of each other.

The latest is Bavelile Mahlalempini-Mqadi, the 64-year-old mother of uMhlanga businesswoman, Thandeka Nene, the Nkandla builder who was recently arrested as investigators sought to uncover who had irregularly benefited from the mammoth project.

Mahlalempini-Mqadi was stabbed 21 times - in front of three nephews - at her Nagina home near Pinetown on Wednesday night. Six men entered and ransacked the house before killing her and fleeing with a car.

Nene’s liquidated company, Bonelena Construction Enterprise, had secured a R90 million contract to upgrade Zuma’s private home.

The death of her mother came 35 days after Sergeant-Major Shanilnand Indurjith, 45, the head of the SANDF’s health unit in Durban, was gunned down at a bus stop in Phoenix.

His brother - former surgeon-general Lieutenant-General Vejay Ramlakan - had been linked to the Nkandla affair for allegedly authorising construction of a helipad, military quarters and a military clinic at the homestead.

Speaking to the Daily News at her mother’s Nagina home on Thursday, Nene said she was puzzled by the murder.

But, she blamed the media for publicising the fraud and corruption charges against her.

The state alleges she bribed a Department of Public Works official to secure R118m worth of contracts for the construction of schools and hospitals between 2006 and 2012.

“To people reading the paper they think I have been awarded a R118m contract, but that’s not true - that work was awarded over a period of time,” she said.

“People think that because they know my mother they will get money from her, because the criminals were asking her ‘iphi imali? (where is the money?), sifun’imali mama (we want the money).’

“This worries me because these big figures make people think we have money, and we have not been awarded any work this whole year,” she said.

Nene’s husband, Sikhumbuzo, said six men “stabbed” her 21 times all over the body and tied the guys (her nephews) with cable ties. One of them had a gun and was showing it to them.

“They stabbed her in front of the boys until she collapsed to the ground.”

They were then shoved into wardrobes before the criminals ransacked the house and stole television sets and a car.

Ramlakan’s younger brother, Anand Indurjith, recently told the Daily News he wondered if the October 29 murder, which is yet to be solved, was a warning for those implicated to keep quiet.

“It’s just a thought and not a fact, because there is no evidence to back that up,” he said.

“On the other hand it could have been just a robbery in which the robbers just didn’t care about the results of shooting at him.... We think a lot and we have questions, but no answers.”

In a statement released by the military after his brother’s death, Ramlakan said the death of his youngest brother had nothing to do with the Nkandla matter.

Police spokesman, Major Thulani Zwane, said four men were arrested near uMzinto in connection with Mahlalempini-Mqadi’s murder and would appear at the Pinetown Magistrate’s Court on Monday.

Police were still searching for other suspects, he said.

They face charges of murder, house robbery and theft of a motor vehicle.

While police believe robbery was the motive, Sikhumbuzo said they questioned why his mother-in-law, who had founded the Power of God Assembly, had to be murdered.

He said she had no enemies.

sihle.mlambo@inl.co.za; chris.ndaliso@inl.co.za

- Daily News

Nkandla builder arrested for fraud

The woman who built President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead has been charged with corruption and 18 counts of fraud.

Thandeka Nene, 42, is accused of exaggerating her experience as a builder to win government tenders to the value of R118 million. She is also accused of bribing a public works official to secure the work.

The Umhlanga businesswoman was arrested by members of the Hawks Anti-Corruption Task Team last week and was released on bail of R30 000. Spokeswoman for the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Natasha Ramkissoon-Kara confirmed the arrest.

“We can confirm Nene was arrested and charged with fraud and corruption. She appeared in the Durban Commercial Crime Court before Judge Nalini Govender. She was granted bail and the case was remanded to December 12.”

Nene’s charges relate to work done by her companies Bonelena Construction Enterprise and Project CC and Ntshantsha Construction CC for the building of schools and a hospital.

After a four-month investigation by the Special Investigating Unit it emerged there were irregularities in the tender procurement process:

* She lied to the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) when applying for a grading so as to increase the grade she was awarded.

* She sent the CIDB forged tax clearance certificates.

* She shared a corrupt relationship with someone from Public Works. It is alleged that she made regular deposits into this person’s account to manipulate the tender process. As a result, Nene was awarded 12 tenders by the Department of Public Works.

The current charges make no mention of the upgrade to Zuma’s home in Nkandla.

Nene’s company secured R90 million for the “security upgrades” at the president’s home.

Nene’s husband Sikhumbuzo Eric Nene, 43, her sister Cynthia Cyndi Mahlalempini, 34, and brother-in-law Jordan Mlamuli Ngubane were also arrested last week because they were listed as directors of Ntshantsha Construction. They were each released on R5 000 bail.

Nene told Independent Media her legal team was looking into the findings of the investigation.

“I have nothing much to say about the matter since it is a new case and it is a legal matter still in court. I will leave the rest in their (legal team’s) capable hands.

She said business people often faced challenges.

“This is a testimony to other entrepreneurs like me out there that business is not for the faint-hearted, but if you have God on your side then all is well.

“God has been nothing but good to me through the many challenges that I faced. He kept me and still continues to keep me going.

“And my friends and family have always been supportive, even today, and I thank them for that,” said Nene.

When asked whether she believed the investigation had anything to do with her involvement in Nkandla, she said she did not want to comment on that.

A high-ranking police source believed the investigation into Nene’s credentials was sparked by her involvement with Nkandla and a fraud charge against her in the Seychelles last year.

“The SIU has done a great job. We are now looking into her assets and there is a possibility that assets to the value of the charges may be retained for the course of her trial,” said the source.

Nene got in trouble with the law last December when she was arrested in the Seychelles, accused of allegedly being involved in an international R7-billion bank fraud syndicate.

According to previous media reports, she was arrested along with two other people, one believed to be from South Africa and the other from Sierra Leone.

She pleaded guilty and paid an admission of guilt fine to return to her family in time for Christmas.

Who is Thandeka Nene?

Thandeka Nene, 42, is a multimillionaire businesswoman who enjoys the finer things in life.

Her company, Bonelena Construction CC, was one of two building firms nominated by the Public Works Department to do major work on the “security upgrades” to President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead. The high roller clinched almost R90 million in 2010 when she secured the contract.

Nene built her empire on government construction tenders.

She boasts on her company’s website that she has a string of academic qualifications and that she’s received a number of awards over the years for being the best female contractor.

Nene, who is formerly from Durban’s KwaDabeka township, now lives in Pietermaritzburg and is known for her flashy cars as well as her opulent homes in Umhlanga and Pietermarizburg, registered in her company name.

She’s often seen draped in designer clothing, and spends a lot of time travelling overseas. She was thrust into the international spotlight last December after she was arrested for bank fraud and alleged links to an international fraud syndicate.

In media reports last year, it was revealed that Nene was arrested with two others, one said to be a South African and the other from Sierra Leone. They were charged with attempted bank fraud.

At the time of the arrests, the Mail & Guardian reported that Nene and the two accused had allegedly approached BMI Bank on the islands to open new accounts that would be funded by what police in the Seychelles said was €500-million (R7-billion) in available funds held by HSBC Bank. Their arrests followed soon after, with a specialised fraud unit of the island’s police force also seizing documents and IT equipment. Nene pleaded guilty and paid a fine in order to return home.

From her Facebook profile, it is evident that she frequents Zimbali on KZN’s north coast, the Michelangelo Hotel in Sandton, and the lavish Beverly Hills hotel in Umhlanga.

nabeelah.shaikh@inl.co.za

- Independent Media

Scramble to fix Nkandla fences after exposé

The broken fence at President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla home has been fixed - thanks to the Sunday Times. Until last weekend, no one appeared to know that parts of the R6.2-million outer perimeter fence were falling apart.

On Thursday, the government sent a KwaZulu-Natal North Coast fencing company to repair the damage.

By the time a Sunday Times team arrived at Zuma's homestead on Thursday afternoon, all sections of the broken fence, including the part near one of the guardhouses, had been repaired. The logs used to support the collapsed fence around the security personnel compound had been removed and a new fence installed.

Two trucks belonging to Cornerstone Homes, a KwaDukuza-based company specialising in fencing projects, were parked nearby. When contacted on Friday, the company refused to comment.

Phillip Masilo, legal adviser to Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, said he did not know whether the fence had been fixed because that was an operational issue and the minister was not in charge of operations.

Public works spokesman Sabelo Mali referred questions to the SAPS, which is responsible for internal security at Nkandla. Police spokesman Solomon Makgale declined to comment.

Zuma's 8.9ha homestead is surrounded by two rings of 3m-high fence - an internal fence that cost R8.2-million and the outer perimeter fence at R6.2-million.

The perimeter fence has a R1.8-million CCTV camera installation and a kinematic fence detection system that cost almost R1-million, bringing costs for the perimeter to about R17-million.

The contract to install the perimeter fence was awarded to Durban businesswoman Thandeka Nene's Bonelela Construction Enterprise and Projects, which secured work worth R98-million on the Nkandla project.

However, Bonelela's contract was cancelled because of nonperformance and the work of installing the outer perimeter security fence was given to another company.

Despite the fences, the Special Investigating Unit has raised concerns about Zuma's safety at Nkandla.

Matter of fact

Last week in "Nkandla falls apart" we incorrectly implied that Betafence Projects erected the outer perimeter fence, which is in a state of disrepair, at President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla residence.

We also failed to ask Betafence for comment. Mike James, general manager of Betafence SA, said that only the inner security - which is in good repair - was erected by his company.

We apologise for these errors. - TimesLive

Nkandla: The hole picture

The holes in the fence that surrounds Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead appear to be in the process of being patched up but the breach has some wondering just how much security R246-million actually procured.

Yesterday a photographer from The Times revisited Nkandla to see the state of the boundary fence as reported on by the Sunday Times.

The photographer found wire had been strung across one of the holes in the fence, which cost R6.2-million to erect.

Despite the obvious risk to the president and his family of a very penetrable security fence , presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj questioned the necessity of relocating the family for their safety while repairs took place.

Said Maharaj: "Why would they need to be moved?"

He subsequently asked for questions in writing but had not responded to them at the time of going to print.

National police spokesman Lieutenant-General Solomon Makgale refused to comment.

The DA's spokesman on policing, Dianne Kohler Barnard, said the evidently poor workmanship suggested tender manipulation.

"We have had R246-million spent on 'fire pools' [and other works] in the name of security, but there is no security. People can stroll up and take pictures and walk in.

"This whole excuse of security comes to nothing."

The collapse of parts of the security fence at the president's home seems to have caught many by surprise, including agencies and organs of state that investigated the expenditure of taxpayers' money on the prestige project.

One such was the office of the public protector - which released a report, Secure in Comfort, that found Zuma and his family had "unduly benefited" from the " security upgrading" of the property.

But the office's spokesman, Oupa Segalwe, was unable to say whether the protector's investigations had unearthed defects with security infrastructure .

Gareth Newham, head of the Institute for Security Studies, said: "What this does is raise questions about how this project is being managed."

The Right2Know Campaign, and the SA History Archive, will today ask the Johannesburg High Court to order the police to name South Africa's "national key points".

The ANC frequently justified the expenditure on Nkandla by referring to it as a national key point.

R2K spokesman Murray Hunter said: "[Such] basic transparency is an important step in countering the uncontrolled secrecy and potential abuse of national security policies."

All R2K requests for a list of key points have been refused by the police.

- Timeslive

Zuma must share Nkandla

When President Jacob Zuma retires from the top office in the land in 2019, he will have to share his multimillion-rand residential complex with the residents of Nkandla, City Press reports.

The clinic, two helicopter landing pads and 20 houses built for security officers are among the facilities that will be used by residents in the rural KwaZulu-Natal area, according to discussions held behind closed doors in Parliament on 13 November.

Zuma could also lose exclusive access to his visitors’ centre, amphitheatre and R2.8m pool area.

Two senior ANC MPs told City Press the party’s leadership in Parliament had decided that Nkandla must be divided into two when Zuma’s term ends so that not just he and his family benefit from the controversial complex.

City Press has learnt that Cedric Frolick, chairperson of the parliamentary ad hoc committee on Nkandla, announced this decision to ANC MPs last Thursday morning at a ­caucus meeting before the committee’s Nkandla report was submitted to Parliament and accepted.

“Frolick said the clinic and some of the other buildings there will be opened to the community,” said a senior ANC MP at the meeting.

Frolick was in New York this week and was not available for comment.

But a highly placed source in the ANC said the decision had been taken and had to be implemented.

“The report was accepted by the National Assembly, and the decision is part of the report. It is a resolution by the House,” said the source.

There is a vague reference to the plan in a report prepared by the committee that Frolick chaired.

“With regard to the structures and amenities that were constructed on the land adjacent to the Zuma homestead [which] belongs to the Ingonyama Trust, the committee recommends that the relevant executive authority should discuss, at the appropriate time, the post-tenure arrangements with the relevant local, provincial and national authorities to facilitate the future use of such structures and amenities by the local ­communities.”

And if Zuma refuses?

“If the executive authority [the president] does not agree with resolutions passed by Parliament, they must give very good reasons explaining why they disagree,” said the senior source.

“Our decision does not affect the president’s personal property, but the part that was built on by the state.”

Zuma’s home, which was upgraded with R246m of taxpayers’ money, is built on two adjoining pieces of land, both leased from the Ingonyama Trust.

The trust manages land that falls under Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini on behalf of communities in KwaZulu-Natal.

The lease for the land on which Zuma’s five houses, his cattle kraal and chicken run are located is in his name.

The second tract of land with the clinic, two helicopter landing pads and 20 houses for police officers is being leased by the department of public works.

The visitors’ centre, amphitheatre and swimming pool area lie in the middle of the two stands.

A source in the department of public works said the clinic, helicopter landing pads and police houses are situated, without any doubt, on the property being leased by the state and these structures are considered to be state property.

“Therefore, the state can decide to open them.”

The public works official was not sure on which side the pool, amphitheatre and visitors’ centre – all determined to be nonsecurity-related upgrades by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela – would fall on if the property was divided.

Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj would not say if Zuma was aware of this decision and if he agreed to it.

“As long as the matter is before Parliament, we will not comment on it,” said Maharaj.

Madonsela found in her report on the Nkandla upgrades that although the clinic, helicopter landing pads and police residences were security requirements, they could have been constructed in the nearby town so the whole community could benefit from them.

Madonsela’s report also revealed that there had been talks between President Zuma and former public works deputy minister Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu about the ­possibility of turning the “fire pool” into a swimming pool so that it would serve a dual purpose and “village children” could use it for swimming lessons.

Bogopane-Zulu even wanted to involve Swimming SA in the project and Zuma apparently supported the idea, according to the report.

- City Press

Millions later, Nkandla is falling apart - Insecure in discomfort.

President Jacob Zuma's Nklandla homestead is falling apart.

This is despite the fact that Zuma supporters have repeatedly argued that the R246-million upgrade to the president's rural compound was vital to keep him safe.

Less than two years after it was erected, the R6.2-million high-security perimeter fence around the homestead is in a disgraceful state.

The Sunday Times visited Nkandla this week and found parts of the fence entirely broken and other sections patched in makeshift fashion with logs and other objects.

Zuma's palatial 8.9ha private residence is surrounded by two rings of 3m-high fence - an internal fence that cost R8.2-million and the outer perimeter fence, which is collapsing.

Perimeter security is bolstered by a R1.8-million CCTV camera installation and a kinematic fence detection system that cost just under R1-million, bringing the cost for the perimeter to more than R17 -million.

What is even more shocking is that, even close to Zuma's main residence within the compound, there is damage to the fence - putting his and his family's security at risk.

Other defects include:

The fence near one of the guardhouses along the dirt road around the homestead appears to have been knocked down and is on the verge of collapse. The metal pole supporting it has been displaced;

The section of the fence around the rondavels built for Zuma's security personnel has completely collapsed and is being supported with logs; and

There is a gaping hole in the fence around the security complex as well as a temporary patch on the same fence.

A local resident said this week that the fence collapsed while contractors were still on site at Zuma's homestead, but nothing was done about it.

The R246-million upgrade and Zuma's response to the scandal have been at the centre of the parliamentary turmoil that has threatened South Africa's democratic processes. Armed riot police stormed parliament 10 days ago to remove rowdy MPs after the latest storm erupted over the Nkandla controversy.

On Friday, Phillip Masilo, legal adviser to Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, said the ministry was not aware of the issue of the security fence.

"This is the first time I'm hearing this from you. I am not sure because we don't deal with security. The police are permanently there. If there was a problem, they would have picked it up and brought it to the attention of public works," he said.

Masilo also said it was not public works's job to monitor the state of the homestead. Its officials would visit Nkandla only when required to do so.

"It's a national key point under the South African Police Service and the South African National Defence Force. Public works is called when there is a problem and they attend to that. So I won't know when last an inspection was done," he said.

Defence force spokesman General Xolani Mabanga referred questions to the police , saying: "As far as I know, internal security is the responsibility of the SAPS."

Security Upgrades

The fence was built as part of phase one of the Nkandla project at the recommendation of the SAPS because the "president could be anywhere on site at any time".

The contract to install the perimeter fence was awarded to Durban businesswoman Thandeka Nene's Bonelela Construction Enterprise and Projects, which secured work worth R98-million on the project.

However, Bonelela's contract was cancelled due to non-performance and the contract to install the high-security fence was given to Betafence Projects, which was paid R9.2-million for the job.

A Special Investigating Unit (SIU) report on the security upgrades, released in August, says Bonelela was paid R1.1-million by Nkandla architect Minenhle Makhanya for the concrete "underdig" for the outer perimeter, which it never carried out.

Bonelela is mentioned in the SIU's R155-million lawsuit against Makhanya, in which it is alleged the company was paid R1.18-million for a fence it never built.

In his report to the Speaker of the National Assembly before the release of the SIU report, Zuma took exception to the "continued conflation of the security upgrades with the construction of buildings for the benefit of security personnel".

He said: "Whilst neither were at my behest, the latter is directly attributable to the fact of my residence being located in a rural area with all the attendant challenges."

But despite the exorbitant security upgrades, the SIU raised concerns about Zuma's safety in Nkandla.

Buried in the last paragraphs of its report, the SIU notes "a number of matters of concern" relating to the security upgrades.

The SIU would not reveal its concerns in the report for security reasons, saying these would be set out in a memorandum it would prepare for the Presidency.

Falling Apart

In her Nkandla report, public protector Thuli Madonsela also had some concerns about security measures at Zuma's homestead, some of which were against the authorised regulations.

There was also no evidence that Makhanya had any experience in the design of security-related projects, she said.

"The argument presented that being an architect qualifies him to design security installations has the same implication as arguing that just because I am a lawyer I am an expert at any area of law. That cannot be logical," she said.

Revelations about breaches in the fence around the president's property follow a Sunday Times report in March that revealed that the R8-million homes built to relocate Zuma's family members as part of the security upgrades were falling apart.

The defects include cracks in the walls of the rondavels, broken window panes, poorly plastered walls and broken bathroom sinks and toilet seats.

The homesteads, separated by a fence from Zuma's homestead, were moved in September 2009 to make way for the upgrades. Makhanya told the public protector that the homesteads were relocated because they would have affected the perimeter fence.

But Madonsela was not convinced and said the argument that their removal was a security requirement was "not borne out by the documents prepared by security experts".

Parliament's Nkandla ad hoc committee, which consisted only of ANC members after an opposition walkout , concluded that Madonsela was not a security expert and therefore could not pronounce on security issues at Zuma's home.

Neither presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj nor police spokesman Solomon Makgale were available for comment.

- TimesLive

Proof that Zuma did intervene on Nkandla

A relatively minor detail has emerged in the Nkandla affair, but it holds several more significant conclusions and contradictions concerning President Jacob Zuma’s defence.

It is a small incident and is merely another piece of the puzzle but a powerful one. The implications are fairly profound and it needs to be viewed with a broader set of evidence.

Zuma’s — and the government’s — defence on the cost of upgrading security at his private residence at Nkandla has been that the decisions were made by officials, and their nature and scope beyond his control. He was merely an innocent bystander and by no means complicit in the decisions; they were, he argues, imposed on him.

Politically, this has allowed the government a "scapegoat defence", where it can acknowledge wrongdoing — errant officials and dysfunctional systems and protocols — but exonerate the president.

But the government suffers a credibility problem. To believe it, one would have to also believe the president, commander-in-chief of the country’s defence forces, either felt too intimidated to intervene or was oblivious to the scale of the upgrades and thus did not regard them or their cost as problematic.

This has been the main point of contention, politically and legally. Those who argue Zuma is culpable argue it is not plausible to claim he was unaware of the scale and therefore the cost, a criticism compounded by the fact that a number of the "security upgrades", for example the swimming pool, served no security purpose. They point to meetings with Zuma’s personal architect and members of government, and to the fact that, while at Nkandla over the course of the construction, Zuma must have seen what was happening.

One of the key questions is: what evidence exists that demonstrates Zuma had agency with regards to the security upgrades and was willing and able to intervene, which could have changed or influenced the final outcome?

For his defence to work, Zuma must have had absolutely no involvement. If he demonstrated any interest in the nature of the security upgrades, he would demonstrate agency and, in turn, culpability.

There is precious little on the public record from Zuma himself on this matter. His political handlers have steered him well clear of public interrogation and, aside from those parliamentary sessions where he provided a scripted answer to questions on the upgrades, he has had next to nothing to contribute; with one noticeable exception.

In his letter to the speaker of Parliament, required by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela in response to her report, the president states that, despite being briefed by those ministers in charge of the upgrades, he "was not intimately involved with the finer details".

Then the president notes an exception: "At these briefings I expressed concern with what appeared to be inordinately lengthy delays which impacted on my family. Equally I found some of the security features like the bulletproof windows an excessive encroachment on my use and enjoyment of my property."

This constitutes a significant contradiction.

What is the president referring to? There is one media interview in which Zuma discusses Nkandla in a meaningful way, an exchange with eNCA, on February 16 2014. In it, he elaborates on this point.

Five minutes and 18 seconds into the second half of the interview, Zuma states in response to the suggestion that he should have intervened: "So when, at what point should you debate? The only thing I debated was when I saw one of my bedrooms, one of my bedrooms, with one little window, like it was a cell. I said to them, ‘Look, I was in prison for 10 years, I can’t be in prison for life now in my home. This one, I cannot accept.’ Now, that’s the only thing. I was looking at it from a subjective point of view to say, how do I sleep in a bedroom, if I open a window I can’t see the outside because of security? I said no."

The president then explained he didn’t debate the changes. "I’m just saying, you don’t debate, you don’t ask, they impose security measures, that’s what it is."

But it was too late; the president had already given the game away. No doubt this was the reason he included reference to this incident in his letter to the speaker.

One small bedroom window pales in comparison with the other measures. It is a very minor detail. But it is all one needs to demonstrate that the president was both aware of the changes and their implications; and, more importantly, willing to intervene. Only that the reason for his intervention was the aesthetic value of the view from his bedroom, as opposed to how public money was being spent.

Later, the president is asked whether, had he been informed, he would have taken issue with the upgrades (nine minutes, three seconds), to which he replies by strongly denying he would have said anything anyway, on the grounds that he is no expert on security: "It is done by the state, for whatever they consider to be a security measure, I mean I would be debating it from an uninformed position." That defence, too, is rendered inconsistent by his attitude to his bedroom window. If aesthetics is reason enough to intervene, why not excessive spending?

From Zuma’s attitude to the bulletproof window in his bedroom, the following facts flow:

• He had a critical opinion on the appropriateness of the installation; in his view, a reasonable one.

• He expressed a clear and unequivocal reservation to those making the decision: "This one, I cannot accept" and "I said no". In his letter he describes them as an "excessive encroachment".

• Those security experts who would have advised otherwise did therefore not intimidate him on this issue. He had an opinion and he felt strongly enough about it to express it, with a view to it being enacted, whatever the security implications.

• Although the outcome of that reservation is unclear, the suggestion is his request was ceded to too. Had it not been, he would have used it to further illustrate his point that he had no control, as opposed to the opposite.

One could argue too that his dissatisfaction with the delays on the project likewise constitutes a reservation and an attempt to intervene. Given those facts, it becomes clear that the president had a view on the security upgrades, and was able to express it and expect those responsible to change the plan accordingly. It appears they did.

But even if the president’s reservations about the window were ignored, it still demonstrates he was able at least to register an objection. Zuma is at pains to point out during the interview that this was the only thing he "debated"; an admission that makes the raft of developments he did not take issue with all the more glaring and inexplicable. If he said no to the window, he could have said no to other "excessive encroachments".

And it is on this point Zuma’s defence is fundamentally compromised: the very inanity of his concern, the seeming insignificance of a bedroom window is rendered profound when weighed against the exorbitant cost and non-security-related expenses attached to so many other of the upgrades. His one petty concern reveals his profound and general ignorance with regards the others. But not so as regards his culpability. On this front, his concern confirms he was generally complicit.

As a metaphor, the government’s defence is akin to a colonel at an army base, his men supposedly looting without his authority. Yet he notices one thing and requests it be changed: that when pillaging, their shoes are not well polished and he insists they must be shiny. In doing so, he reveals both his general ignorance and his specific involvement. And he would be culpable for both.

It is an interesting thought to imagine what Zuma thinks when he looks through that window. As he takes in the scenery, does he wonder how limited the breathtaking view would have been had he not intervened? Does he commend himself for putting his foot down? If he does, it says something about the many remarkable contradictions Zuma is able simultaneously to hold in his mind. No doubt a different thought occupies his thoughts when he’s taking a swim.

- BDLive

Madonsela surprised at MPs’ response

Cape Town - Public Protector Thuli Madonsela is “surprised” by Parliament’s decision not to clarify aspects of her Nkandla report before coming to conclusions, but respects its course of action.

Responding to the debate on the Nkandla ad hoc committee’s report on the matter and Parliament’s adoption of the report in a rowdy session on Thursday, Madonsela said the ad hoc committee had been “well within its rights” to decide whether to invite her to present her report.

Spokesman Oupa Segalwe said Madonsela had no comment on the findings of the committee.

The committee, which consisted only of ANC members after an opposition walkout, found President Jacob Zuma had not violated his constitutional obligations in failing to protect public resources, as Madonsela had found.

She had said in her report by failing to intervene to stop lavish expenditure on his home, Zuma tacitly accepted the addition of elements that were not security-related and benefited unduly by the addition of value to his property at public expense.

As head of the executive, Zuma had a constitutional duty to ensure public resources were handled responsibly.

But the committee argued only the Constitutional Court could make a finding that the president had failed to meet such obligations.

It also differed with Madonsela on the question of undue benefit, saying she was not a security expert and could therefore not come to such a conclusion.

In relying on assessments done by the SAPS on the security features installed, Madonsela had not taken into consideration that the assessments and design of the features had not been done in accordance with procedure stated in a cabinet memo of 2003.

Legal advice to the committee, in considering whether a civil case of undue benefit could be pursued against the president, concluded it would be “premature” to make such a finding in the absence of an assessment done in accordance with the cabinet memorandum.

The committee instructed the cabinet to get qualified experts to assess which features, including a swimming pool, cattle kraal, chicken run, visitors’ centre and amphitheatre, could be considered bona fide security.

Madonsela had instructed Zuma to work with the Treasury and SAPS to determine a reasonable portion of costs associated with these, which he should repay.

The committee also found, unlike Madonsela, that Zuma had taken steps to put a stop to the extravagance, as an interministerial task team investigation, of which the president must have been informed, was instituted by Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi in December 2012.

Zuma had also issued a proclamation last year for the Special Investigating Unit to probe wrongdoing in the project, leading to disciplinary steps taken against a number of officials and a civil claim of R155m against architect Minenhle Makhanya.

Madonsela’s report said the first public knowledge of overspending at Nkandla had come via a newspaper report in 2009, before construction had even begun, to which the Presidency had responded by denying public funds were being spent on the president’s private home.

The Public Works probe began only three years later, by which time costs had escalated to more than R200m and Madonsela had started her investigation.

“All we can say is that we were surprised that Parliament didn’t think we could assist by shedding light on the contents of the report,” Segalwe said.

“Listening to the comments on the report we could tell that there were misunderstandings on what we said or didn’t say in the report, things we could have clarified.”

It was “unusual” for an agency to issue a report and Parliament not to request it to assist in understanding it. “But, again, we respect Parliament’s decision to do it in its own way,” Segalwe said.

However, should anyone choose to challenge Parliament’s report in court, the protector would follow a previous commitment to join the proceedings as a friend of the court.

- Weekend Argus

MPs’ Nkandla report asks much of us

IF THE red lights are not flashing over Parliament’s special report on the R246m spending at President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home, they should be.

The report of the National Assembly’s ad hoc committee on the Nkandla upgrades released this week asks citizens to believe some astonishing things — not the least being that Mr Zuma neither knew of the upgrades nor had approved them.

Over the years there have been many helicopter flights between King Shaka International Airport and Nkandla, at a cost of millions of rand, to ferry Mr Zuma to his rural home at weekends.

The amount spent on the flights indicates that Mr Zuma visited regularly. So for a good couple of months there would have been construction happening in front of his nose at his home. But the committee is asking us to believe that he did not ask anybody what was going on at his home.

We are also being asked to believe that the head of state was not asked if he approved of the design of the so-called security upgrades being constructed at his private home.

Keeping in mind that he and his family would have to live with the upgrades for a long time after the end of his term of office, does it not make sense that the changes to his home would have to have been to his liking? Even if they were only security measures?

The opposition’s alternative report comes to the conclusion that Mr Zuma both knew and approved of the construction at Nkandla and recommends that he be removed from office for undermining the public protector and misleading Parliament about having a bond on the Nkandla property.

Another deeply problematic recommendation from the ad hoc committee is that security experts from the State Security Agency and the South African Police Service return to Nkandla to determine whether the security upgrades are adequate and report their findings to Parliament.

Because this report will deal with the president’s security, the findings will be reported to Parliament’s joint standing committee on intelligence. This committee meets in secret and its members take an oath of confidentiality, meaning any further irregular spending at Nkandla could be hidden from public scrutiny.

Given the way in which the African National Congress members of the ad hoc committee have rallied to protect Mr Zuma, it is not difficult to believe that those serving on the intelligence committee would do the same.

It has become clear that former public works minister Geoff Doidge, his then deputy Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu and public works officials on the team at Nkandla are going to carry the can for the outrageous spending.

The ad hoc committee recommends that "the president should note the instances where the executive authorities — ie the former minister and deputy minister of public works — did not act according to the prescripts of the Public Finance Management Act that sets out precise divisions of responsibility between the executive authority and the administration, and if necessary, take appropriate action.

"The president should consider whether any member(s) of the executive authority failed to implement the provisions of the Cabinet memorandum of 2003, either through complacency or negligence in the execution of their duties, and, if necessary, take appropriate action."

This is hugely problematic as an interministerial probe had not even interviewed Mr Doidge or Ms Bogopane-Zulu. The ad hoc committee is also giving the power to resolve the Nkandla matter to the very person who should be answering questions about the spending — Mr Zuma himself.

The damage being done to Parliament through this abrogation of its constitutional duty to hold the executive to account is deeply alarming.

- BDLive