SIU might probe Nkandla upgrade costs

It now appears that the Presidency is awaiting the final paperwork from the Public Works Department before issuing a proclamation asking the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to probe government's spending on President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla home.

On Sunday, Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi said the unit would be asked to probe why government spent R206 million on what he said was for security upgrades for the project.

Included in this amount was R135 million for the "operational needs" of various government departments, R7 million for consultants and security features such as bullet-proof windows, security fencing, evacuation mechanisms, and firefighting equipment.

The upgrades include a clinic, steam rooms, fireplaces, chandeliers, the construction of a sauna and changing facilities, revamping of a swimming pool and upgrading of security measures, including an escape route.

Nxesi said no public funds were used for the actual building of the houses.

However, he said the report would not be made public.

Nxesi stressed Zuma was not kept up to date regarding the costs of the upgrade.

THAT 'DUBIOUS LETTER' (This one click here)

Meanwhile, the City Press newspaper said it is in possession of a letter which was written by the Public Works Department to Zuma informing him of the upgrade costs in 2010.

The department denies ever seeing what it calls 'the dubious letter'.

The letter appears to have been signed by the then Public Works Minister Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde, her deputy Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu, director general Siviwe Dongwana, chief operating officer Ashraf Adam and deputy director general Rachard Samuels on 5 November 2010.

PRESIDENCY TO OUTLINE SIU INVESTIGATION

The Presidency says it cannot confirm if it has received the official investigative report from the Public Works Department.

Technically, Public Works has to ask the president to proclaim the SIU investigation into the Nkandla spending.

That proclamation will set out the official mandate for the probe and will outline what exactly the unit must investigate.

Meanwhile, the Congress of the South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) has condemned the Nkandla spending saying it cannot be justified.

Zuma recently came under fire when it was revealed that the government was spending almost R400-million to renovate his official residences in Pretoria and Cape Town.

The Public Protector and the Auditor General are conducting their own investigations into the upgrade costs.

- Eyewitness News

Cape Town fire victims being assisted

Cape Town - A temporary relocation area was being developed for 800 families affected by a blaze in Khayelitsha on New Year's day, Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille said on Thursday.

De Lille, in a council speech, said the City and provincial government were meeting with community representatives weekly to fast-track the development of the temporary site at OR Tambo Hall in Khayelitsha.

“Earthworks have been completed and very soon those residents still residing in the community hall will be accommodated on this site.”

Another site in nearby Mfuleni was being developed as the ultimate location for fire victims.

Fires in Khayelitsha and Du Noon on January 1 killed five men and destroyed numerous shacks and formal houses.

De Lille said some had accused fire and emergency services of not responding fast enough.

According to the mayor, the fire and rescue services department had nearly halved the fire mortality rate in informal settlements, from 7.9 deaths per 100,000 people in 2005, to 4.3 deaths in 2011. 

- Sapa

Nkandla is not a National key Point

The Ministerial Handbook prescribes that a public official is allowed R100,000 for security upgrades and given that this amount was inadequate to complete Zuma’s house, a plan was hatched in silence to increase this amount.  Lawyers were engaged to find loopholes to accommodate  Zuma, and a perfect plan was conceived, use Apartheid legislation called the National Key Point Act and hide all the skulduggery.

The National Key Point Act (“Act”) states that:

Section 2.2  The owner of a Key Point included in a Key Points Complex shall forthwith be notified thereof by written notice, as well as of the name and address of each of the other owners of Key Points included in the Key Points Complex.

3 Duties of owner in relation to Key Point or Key Points Complex

(1)   On receipt of a notice mentioned in section 2 (2), the owner of the National Key Point concerned shall after consultation with the Minister at his own expense take steps to the satisfaction of the Minister in respect of the security of the said Key Point.

For Mr Nxesi to allege that Zuma did not know is false and here is why.  For a Key point declaration, the Minister (Mthethwa) had to consult with the owner (Zuma – although factually incorrect since this is tribal land) on the costs of the upgrade for security purpose.  The media reported that Zuma was to spend R20 million of his own money, which later changed to R10 million which later changed to R5 million.  Now all these amounts are correct and the changes (of amounts to be spent by Zuma) were necessitated by the consultation process as legally required between Zuma and the Minister.  The Minister had to legally consult with the home owner, otherwise the expenditure would have been unlawful.

So Mr Nxesi, I dare you to make a sworn affidavit to the effect that Zuma was not consulted about the expenditure and repeat your allegations in affidavit that Zuma was not consulted about the expenditure.

Why should I continue paying taxes when the President thinks he is king.  Reminds me of the last king of Scotland, Idi Amin.

For you to now claim proper procurement processes were not followed is actually disingenuous.  This upgrade was hidden from the public from the word go.  Zuma’s trusted lieutenant, Mthethwa has hidden the project from the public.  

In truth, with my limited understanding of the law, it does not appear the declaration of Nkandla as a National Key Point meets the requirements of being classified as a National Key Point.  If an airport, a water installation or an electrical substation is sabotaged, the country will not function, hence these places are key points. The Act states that:

Declaration of any place or area as a National Key Point

If it appears to the Minister at any time that any place or area is so important that its loss, damage, disruption or immobilization may prejudice the Republic, or whenever he considers it necessary or expedient for the safety of the Republic or in the public interest, he may declare that place or area a National Key Point.

Nkandla does not meet the criteria to be classified as a National key point.  What prejudice will befall South Africa if Nkandla is destroyed, none, zilch, mahala.  This was an arbitrary application of the law to benefit Mr Zuma.

- News24

They huff and they puff but they won't escape Nkandla

The Times Editorial: The R206-million Nkandla debacle will not go away. It will continue to haunt President Jacob Zuma and his party until the real culprits behind this shameless looting are exposed and dealt with.

It does not help for Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi to shout and make a show of losing his temper as he tries to convince South Africans that no taxpayers' money was used to "upgrade" Zuma's Nkandla compound. No amount of spin from loyal ANC members and government officials will conceal the fact that state resources have been looted under the guise of providing security for the head of state.

Zuma is at present entitled to three state houses, which have all recently been renovated. That is why the millions that have been spent on his private home defy logic.

Cosatu hit the nail on the head yesterday when it said that for the government to spend such a "grotesque amount of public money on any one person is shocking and grossly insensitive to the workers, the poor and the homeless".

Nxesi should understand that every cent spent by the state comes from our pockets and, as long as we pay taxes, we are entitled to know how our money is spent.

We agree with Cosatu's demand that the names of service providers who benefited from the R206-million refurbishment of Zuma's Nkandla home be made public.

Cosatu went further and said that the names of the directors and shareholders of all the companies involved in this scandal should also be exposed so that it can be determined whether politicians or civil servants have benefited from the deal.

It is high time that we broaden the focus from Zuma and also demand to be told who were the key players behind this shady deal.

South Africans should put pressure on the government and the ANC to revise the ministerial handbook that they use as a shield in looting our resources.

- Timeslive

Nkandla spending put in perspective

At first glance, Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi’s latest explanations on government spending at President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home make no sense.

According to Nxesi, a government investigation has apparently both revealed that the state paid over R206 million for the upgrade of Nkandla “so far” (R71m of that for “security upgrades”), and found “no evidence that public money was spent to build the private residence of the president or that any house belonging to the president was built with public money”.

But Nxesi might not have contradicted himself – it all depends on how one defines terms like “build”, “private residence” and “belong”.

When former president Bill Clinton tried to explain in 1998 during his grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair why he had not lied to his top advisers, despite having assured them that “there is nothing going on between us”, he famously said that it all “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”.

Later, when asked if he was ever alone with Lewinsky, he said: “It depends on how you define ‘alone’.”

Clinton was widely ridiculed for his lawyerly parsing of words. Nxesi is surely also going to be derided for claiming that although the state had spent more than R135m on non-security-related upgrades at Nkandla, none of this was spent to build the private residence of the president.

I will leave it to the comedians to mock Nxesi. Instead, I propose to parse his word in the best lawyerly fashion before determining whether it was lawful to spend over R200m on construction at the private residence of the president.

Of course, we do not know what is really contained in the report of the government task team set up to investigate the spending at Zuma’s private home at Nkandla.

Nxesi is refusing to release the report for “security” reasons, which means we should treat his most recent statements about the matter as no more than allegations. But assuming these allegations are true, this is what I suspect Nxesi might have meant.

Nxesi originally claimed that the government only spent money on security upgrades at Nkandla. He now admits that his previous claim was false. According to Nxesi, the government allegedly spent just over R71m on “security upgrades” at Nkandla. Over R20m of this was allegedly spent on private security consultants.

(By the way, the use of private consultants suggests that our government is not very serious about Zuma’s security. Who says these security consultants won’t sell information about the security measures at Nkandla to a foreign government or to the Boeremag? These consultants obviously know how to make a fast buck, so there are no guarantees that they will keep their special knowledge secret.)

Nxesi now claims that the government allegedly spent a further R135m on non-security related construction at Nkandla, but that none of it was used to build the president’s private residence, or used on any of the houses that belong to him.

How can this be true?

It can be true, first, if one adopts an innovative definition of “build” to include only houses built from scratch.

This definition of “build” would exclude any cost related to the upgrade or extension of existing houses. For example, installing gold taps or electrically heated toilet seats in his residences, or adding a few rooms to an existing structure at Nkandla, would then conveniently not fall within the definition of “build”.

Second, it can be true if one assumes that a “private residence” is only the main house where the president normally sleeps and works. Other houses in the Nkandla compound – where the family watches TV, or where his wives, children, extended family sleep – would then conveniently not be viewed as his “private residence”.

That would mean that some of the R135m was used to build many other houses at Nkandla for the private use and benefit of the president and his family, but these would then not be viewed as his “private residence”.

Third, Nxesi might have meant that although R135m was spent to build several buildings at Nkandla and that many of them are exclusively used by Zuma and his family, these buildings do not “belong” to Zuma, because they were built on communal land and are not legally registered in his name at the deeds office.

It could also mean that he had ceded the houses to one of the Guptas or to FNB, which allegedly was kind enough to break the rules and register a bond over the property despite the lack of a title deed.

Does this clear things up? Perhaps not, as there is still the little matter of the Ministerial Handbook, the go-to bible of our ministers and MECs.

The handbook states: “The Department of Public Works will be responsible for making available general cleaning services in private residences used for official purposes. Members are responsible for all costs related to the procurement, upkeep and maintenance of private residences used for official purposes.”

But, dear readers, there might be a loophole in the Ministerial Handbook, as it defines a “member” as any “minister, deputy minister, premier, member of the executive council (MEC) and a presiding officer/deputy presiding officer in Parliament”. One can therefore argue that as far as the handbook is concerned, the president is not a “member” (no sniggers) and that the state is therefore not bound by this strict prohibition on the use of state funds for the procurement or upkeep of his private residence.

While it is obviously unconscionable for the state to spend R135m on upgrading the private property of the president, one might argue that the Ministerial Handbook does not prohibit this.

Just like the Bible sanctions the keeping of slaves, the Ministerial Handbook might sanction the use of public funds to enrich the president.

Perhaps the drafters of the Ministerial Handbook assumed that the president could be trusted not to waste R200m of public funds on his own comfort while many of our compatriots languish in poverty.

If one cannot trust the president (who earns a R2m salary and eats and lives for free) to put the interests of the poor above his own, who can one trust to do so?

- The Star - By Pierre de Vos

For Cosatu's benefit the names: Nkandla pay shock - take 2

Five days before President Jacob Zuma called on executives to tighten their belts, the public works department approved payments of millions of rands to contractors developing Zuma’s homestead in Nkandla.

City Press is in possession of internal public works documentation showing that multimillion-rand payments to at least nine companies were authorised last Friday.

This comes two weeks after City Press revealed the extent of government’s more then R200 million splurge on Zuma’s private property.

Zuma this week called on executives in the public and private sectors to “tighten their belts as part of building a shared commitment to prosperity and growth”.

The documents further reveal:

» Thirty-one costly new buildings were constructed in the compound, with one contractor (who built six of them) charging public works R8 million per building;

» The state will pay R2.3 million for lifts to carry Zuma and his visitors between an underground bunker and the main houses;

» The installation of air conditioning systems in Zuma’s houses at a cost of R1.5 million to taxpayers will be paid for as part of security renovations; and

» A total of R3 million was spent on bulletproof glass for the compound.

This comes after Afrikaans daily Die Burger revealed this week that total costs for renovations to the Nkandla homestead had risen to R248 million.

In August 2010, public works told Parliament the project would cost R6.4 million.

Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi defended the spending two weeks ago by saying a “frank assessment” of security at Zuma’s compound showed a “deep rural area in which there was basically none of the services we all take for granted in an urban area”.

The upgrades had to be done, Nxesi said, to accommodate the “security of dignitaries” when they visit Nkandla.

This happened despite massive upgrades to Zuma’s official residences in Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town that have been undertaken since 2009.

The documents reveal R54 million has been spent at Nkandla just on consultants, including architects, a project manager, a quantity surveyor and engineers.

Payments to contractors started in December 2009 – seven months after Zuma was sworn in as president.

The final delivery date of the project is August 2013.

The biggest beneficiary of the Nkandla upgrade by far has been businesswoman Thandeka Nene’s Bonelena Construction Enterprise and Projects, which scored two building contracts worth R33.4 million and R66 million, respectively.

The R33.4 million contract was for “emergency work”, indicating the work did not go out on public tender.

A public works insider said it was common for projects in the department’s “prestige portfolio”, of which Nkandla is one, not to go out on tender.

The department had a list of approved service providers from which it chose companies to do the work.

Bonelena’s second contract, the cost of which increased from R55 million to R66 million, was for the construction of “25 new buildings” at R2.6 million each.

It’s unclear if the buildings are houses, but the weekly Mail & Guardian previously reported that the project included 20 houses for bodyguards.

Payments to Bonelena started in April last year, but the total spend was signed off last Friday by a public works official.

Nene told the Sunday Times last week her business was liquidated after public works failed to pay her R8 million for work done at Nkandla.

When City Press put it to her that her company in fact scored almost R100 million from the project, Nene, who has a penchant for German sedans and luxury holidays, said the figures were “not correct” and that she could not speak to us “because (she) signed confidentiality agreements”.

The Mail & Guardian reported last year that Bonelena employed Zuma’s niece, Khulubuse Zuma’s sister, as a manager on the project.

Nene said there was no Zuma in her company, but that she was “too far” from the work at Nkandla to know which people the company employed on-site.

Asked if she investigated whether Zuma’s niece worked for Bonelena after the report was published, Nene said she “didn’t have time for that”.

Moneymine 310, a company owned by businesswoman Pamela Mfeka, was contracted to construct six new buildings at the compound at a cost of R47.6 million, meaning each building cost R7.9 million.

It is unclear exactly which buildings the firm constructed.

A visitors centre, gymnasium and guest rooms were part of the project.

Mfeka runs Igugu Consulting, a company that provides human resources services and hosts corporate functions.

According to Zuma at a press briefing two weeks ago, his family paid for part of the construction.

He said: “When people see my house on the TV, they must be thinking that government has built this for me.

No. A large part of that … has been done by the family. How then this was done, I would not want to judge.”

It is still unclear exactly what expenses Zuma and his family will carry, but an earlier public works document put the figure at R10.6 million.

Despite numerous requests for comment, public works didn’t respond and referred City Press to Nxesi’s two-week-old statement.

Most of the 15 contractors who worked on the project also declined to comment, citing confidentiality clauses.

- City Press

originally published 20 Oct 2012 

'Expose Nkandla big shots'

Labour federation Cosatu is demanding the release of the names of service providers who benefited from the R206-million refurbishment of President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead.

The federation said it wanted the information to include the names of the directors and shareholders of Nkandla contractors so that it could determine whether politicians and civil servants had a relationship with the companies.

"We want to be assured that no government official, including political leadership, is conflicted and/or has benefited from what appears to be a massive inflation of prices," Cosatu spokesman Patrick Craven said yesterday.

Cosatu, an ANC alliance partner, slammed the government, saying it was insensitive in spend ing more than R200-million to upgrade Zuma' s private home.

Labelling the expenditure "grotesque", Craven said Cosatu was shocked that R71-million had been spent on upgrading security.

An additional R135-million was spent on "operational needs" such as a helipad and a clinic.

"For the government to spend such a grotesque amount of public money on any one person is shocking and grossly insensitive to the workers, the poor and the homeless," he said.

Nkandla should not be given priority over the needs of rural communities, he said.

Cosatu's response was made in the wake of the government's confirmation that a cumulative R206-million had been spent on Zuma's KwaZulu-Natal homestead.

On Sunday, Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi admitted that there had been irregularities in supply-chain management involving "many" officials.

The DA has resorted to invoking the Protection of Access to Information Act in a bid to force the government to reveal the full report on the Nkandla upgradings.

DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko said the application was sent to the Department of Public Works yesterday.

"It is a slap in the face of accountability and transparency for the report, which makes a number of unsubstantiated assertions, to remain secret," Mazibuko said.

"President Zuma must do the right thing and intervene to ensure that his government tables the report in parliament for scrutiny and debate."

The Protection of Access to Information Act gives the department 30 days in which to release the report or give detailed reasons for not doing so.

Nxesi has cited "security" as his reason for not releasing the report in full.

The ANC said Mazibuko was misguided in calling for a parliamentary debate on the report.

"It is reasonable and appropriate for a report of such a confidential nature to be forwarded to the law enforcement agencies to investigate any possible acts of criminality rather than be made the subject of a public political spectacle. No country can lay bare the sensitive security details of its head of state or the security operations of the state for public debate and scrutiny,"ANC chief whip Mathole Motshekga said yesterday.

- Timeslive

Twelve million going to bed hungry in SA

More than 12million South Africans will go to bed hungry tonight.

Though this country produces sufficient food for its population, skyrocketing prices prevent the poor - most of them urban households - from getting adequate nutrition .

The hungriest people are in Cape Town (80%) and Msunduzi, in KwaZulu-Natal (87%).

A five-year study by the University of Cape Town's African Food Security Unit Network has exposed a food crisis that constitutes a "death sentence" for many and which the government has labelled as "serious".

It found that, in Johannesburg, 43% of the poor faced starvation and malnutrition. Researchers believe the figure could be higher.

According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, 870 million people worldwide are chronically undernourished, 234million of them living in sub-Saharan Africa.

The plight of the hungry was highlighted in 2011 when four children, aged between two and nine, died in a farmer's field as they began an 18km walk in search of their mother and food in Verdwaal, North West. It was later discovered that they had not eaten for more than a week.

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries last week revealed that 12million South Africans are "food insecure".

Food security refers to the ability to access adequate nutrition - food that is affordable, hygienic and culturally accepted.

Food Bank SA spokesman Keri Uys said yesterday: "South Africa is in dire straights. The entire country is affected. It is not just rural areas.

"Every day millions of people go to be bed hungry. There are children whose daily food is half a white-bread sandwich. How can you bring up a nation on this?"

"The implication is a death sentence."

The network's Dr Jane Battersby-Lennard said the University of Cape Town study focused on poor areas in 11 cities in the Southern African Development Community, including Cape Town, Johannesburg and Msunduzi.

The survey covered 1060 households in each city.

Battersby-Lennard said the number of South Africans subject to food insecurity could be far higher than the survey suggested.

"The figures from the surveyed cities show 77% of all households were either moderately or severely food insecure.

"When it comes to South Africa, two of the surveyed cities were higher than this, which is dire. The challenge of food security in our cities is greater than imagined."

She said the problem was access to adequate nutrition, not the availability of food.

"This is because of poverty. People are simply too poor to buy food. On top of this, poor areas have seven times fewer supermarkets than rich areas, making it a struggle to access nutritional food.

"This forces households, especially those that run out of money before the end of the month, to borrow and buy food on credit.

"If supermarkets do move to these [poor] areas it often forces informal food traders out of business, making people more food insecure."

She said the government had identified food security as a "critical challenge".

"Though a higher proportion of rural households face food insecurity, when you look at the different scales of food insecurity - which range from mild to moderate and severe - more urban households fall within the severe food insecurity category.

"Severe food insecurity means households are forced to cut back on meal sizes and numbers, with people going hungry for days. Our urban population is facing severe malnourishment."

The study found two distinct heightened hunger periods - January, and during winter. On average, the poorest households surveyed spent 53% of their income on food.

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries spokesman Palesa Mokomele said that if 12million people were subject to food insecurity it implied that about 4million households faced starvation.

"These are families often relying on only one kind of food, such as maize, often not in regular supply.

"The government is concerned ... it is a crisis."

Joe Kgobokoe, the department's chief director for food security and agrarian reform, said a "host of programmes" addressed the crisis.

"[The department] promotes food gardens at homes and schools, and assists rural smallhold ers to produce food."

- Timeslive

LETTER: Bare facts on Nkandla

Cape Town - The release of the results of the investigation by the task team set up to probe the alleged spending of public money on Nkandla, just hours before the Bafana Bafana match, was curiously timed.

Nonetheless, it was in keeping with the government’s promise that a swift investigation would be conducted and the result announced to the public.

While in the mind of South Africans the result of the investigation is bound to compete for attention with the analysis of the match and the national team’s advancement in the tournament, South Africans can at least put the issue behind them.

They have been told that no public money was spent on the president’s personal homestead. The country can now move on to celebrate Bafana Bafana’s advancement in the tournament — if only it were that easy.

Incidentally, all accounts of the news conference at which the result of the investigation was announced somehow remind me of an exchange long ago.

The story dates back to 1949. Marilyn Monroe was alleged to have posed nude for a calendar — in those days, care was taken in the presentation of such photographs to leave the really interesting bit to one’s imagination.

A young and curious reporter who had seen and wondered about the photograph, to no end, approached Ms Monroe to ask her if indeed she did not have anything on when the photograph was taken. She retorted that she had "the radio on".

Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi reported that only R206m was spent on security upgrades and operational requirements but no public money was spent on the upgrading of President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence. He also reported that there were supply chain irregularities in the procurement processes.

This makes one wonder that if irregularities can creep into such an ostensibly high-security prestige project — what happens at the level of projects that are not so classified?

People have not stopped wondering about the truth in the Marilyn Monroe story. We sure have not heard the last of this prestige project.

- Businessday - Kola Jolaolu

Nkandla: Everything that's wrong with the Zuma government

The unfolding scandal about the use of more than R205 million of public funds to upgrade President Jacob Zuma’s private homestead serves as a perfect metaphor for what is wrong with the Zuma government, led by an former criminal accused in a fraud and corruption case. The bizarre secrecy and dissembling, the appeal to national security, the self-enrichment and the misappropriation of funds are the hallmarks of Zuma’s presidency. And as often has been the case in recent years, the judiciary may be the only body who is capable of providing an effective avenue for challenging the abuse of public funds in the Nkandla affair.

As I have argued before, it is generally not desirable for the judiciary to get involved in party political squabbles. Nor is generally a good idea to ask the judiciary to overturn unwise decisions of the government or to try to stop the selfish and degenerate behaviour of politicians. But our courts have a constitutional duty to uphold and enforce the Constitution. When the venality of politicians become so egregious that it threatens the democracy itself, or poses a serious risk to the Rule of Law, the courts – acting as guardians of the constitutional democracy – may have no other option but to intervene when asked to do so.

There are at least two ways in which the courts could intervene to stop the continued looting of public funds. All we need is a man or woman with deep pockets to fund these challenges. Maybe one of the staunch ANC members feeling guilty about being silent in the face of such abuse of power could be persuaded to help. I would gladly donate my time and whatever skills I have.

First, if requested to do so, the Constitutional Court will almost certainly declare the Apartheid-era National Key Points Act unconstitutional. The Act empowers the relevant Minister to declare any “place or area” a National Key Point if it “is so important that its loss, damage, disruption or immobilisation may prejudice the Republic or whenever he considers it necessary or expedient for the safety of the Republic or in the public interest”. The Act does not require the Minister to inform the public about which places or areas have been declared national key points and Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa has refused to list all national key points “for security” reasons. National Key Points are so secret that we are not even allowed to know where they are.

Section 10 of the Act prohibits any person from obstructing the owner of a Key Point from securing the National Key Point. (Incidentally, the owner of the National Key Point is supposed to secure that place or area “at his own expense”.) The Act also prohibits any person from providing any information “relating to the security measures, applicable at or in respect of any National Key Point or in respect of any incident that occurred there, without being legally obliged or entitled to do so”. If you breach this law, you face a prison sentence of up to three years.

The National Key Points Act therefore creates secret crimes and turns us all into potential criminals. In this Kafkaesque world, the law prohibits us from revealing security measures about a National Key Point, while also making it impossible for us to find out which places or areas have been declared National Key Points. For all we know, all open air toilets and all shopping malls in South Africa have been declared National Key Points and anyone who tells her friend where the security guard looking after the toilets or the mall is sitting is facing a three-year prison sentence.

The Rule of Law is a founding value in the Constitution and in Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs, the Constitutional Court confirmed that this value includes the requirement that legal rules had to be conveyed in a clear and accessible manner. This requirement that legal rules must be clear and accessible is more pressing in criminal cases, in order to avoid a situation where you could be deprived of your freedom and sent to jail on the basis of a secret law that you could not possibly have known about.

Second, the decision to allocate more than R200 million of public funds to upgrade the private house of a politician may well be challenged on the basis that it is irrational. President Zuma has three different official residences that are well-protected and secure. If he feels scared or paranoid he can always go and sleep in one of these three official residences where one assumes security is tight. Moreover, like every other president in our democracy, he will retire, at the most, after two terms in office. He will then live in a compound valued at more than R200 million. Shortly before he became president, the same property was valued at just over R400,000. In other words, it is as if President Zuma instructed the Treasury to write him a R200 million personal cheque, which he then spent on housing renovations. Even Schabir Shaik did not have that kind of money to bribe Zuma with. In short, the spending of R200 million of public funds at Nkandla is a form of state-sanctioned (and defended) personal corruption.

The Constitutional Court has said that the rule of law requires the president and all other public officials to exercise their powers in a rational manner. In Prinsloo v van der Linde, the Court explained that public officials should not act:

in an arbitrary manner or manifest “naked preferences” that serve no legitimate governmental purpose, for that would be inconsistent with the rule of law and the fundamental premises of the constitutional state….. This has been said to promote the need for governmental action to relate to a defensible vision of the public good…

If the official action is not taken to pursue a legitimate government purpose, or if there is no rational relationship between the legitimate government purpose and the official action, the action is in conflict with the Rule of Law and therefore unconstitutional and invalid.

On Sunday, Publics Works Minister Thulas Nxesi claimed that “only” R70 million of the more than R200 million was used for security related upgrades at Nkandla. This presumably includes the cost of the underground bunker as well as the cost of bulletproof windows. More than R135 million was used for “operational needs for state departments”, which includes the cost for a private a clinic and other “accommodation”. Money was also used for a private lift, a tuck shop, an Astro Turf soccer field, two guard houses, refuse and electrical rooms, electrical supply, sewer treatment plant, relocation of families forcibly removed from their homes to make way for the Nkandla expansion, the upgrade of water supplies, an entrance by-pass, an entrance road and, last but not the least, a cattle culvert.

Upgrading security arrangements to protect the president would almost certainly be considered a legitimate government purpose. The government therefore pursued a legitimate government purpose when it authorised the spending of over R70 million at Nkandla. Whether there was a rational relationship between the legitimate government purpose and the astronomical spending of R70 million is another matter. Can one say that there is a rational connection between the aim of protecting the president by building a bunker under his private home, given the fact that we are not at war with any country and given the fact that his official residences must include the kinds of facilities now replicated at his private house - all at state expense? I doubt it, but am open to being persuaded otherwise.

But it is the spending of R130 million on operational expenses that is never going to fly and must clearly be irrational. These expenses had the sole aim of enriching Zuma and providing him with a huge compound of buildings and other facilities (including a clinic, water plant, sewer treatment plant and a tuck shop) - all paid for by the state. This kind of spending cannot possibly be said to “relate to a defensible vision of the public good.” Is it a defensible vision of the public good that the President be treated differently from every other citizen? How does one defend this spending as demonstrating an acceptable vision of the public good in a democracy when the money was used to doll up the private home of the president by adding a tuck shop, an Astro Turf and a cattle culvert; by adding a private lift and electrical rooms, by building a private sewer treatment plant? (I recall that in some municipalities our people still use the bucket system – and unlike the president they do not earn R2.4 million with which they can build their own toilet.)

The answer can only be NO.

If President Zuma wants a private lift or a sewer plant, he must either wait his turn or he must pay for it himself – like every other private citizen in South Africa. Being president does not allow him to dip into public funds to enhance his own private comfort. He is not our king or queen and neither is he President-For-Life. President Zuma is merely another politician on the take. His term of office will eventually come to an end, after which he is entitled to a state pension. Unless he is impeached for a serious violation of the Constitution or the law or serious misconduct – in which case he will receive no benefits that usually accrue to a former president.

There is no legitimate purpose for spending R130 million of public funds on Jacob Zuma’s private home to enhance his comfort. The spending is therefore irrational and unlawful and a court could declare it so, and order the president and/or the Minister to repay the R130 million to the state. 

- Pierre De Vos - DM

City's stadium headache

The city of Cape Town is desperate to be rid of the loss-making Cape Town Stadium, especially as Western Province rugby bosses have shown no interest in being an anchor tenant.

City's ratepayers will thus continue to foot an annual bill of about R54-million to maintain the World Cup showpiece, which only generated R14-million in revenue last year.

Announcing a pre-season game between the DHL Stormers and Boland Cavaliers at the stadium, Cape Town's mayoral committee member for events and marketing, Grant Pascoe, said the match gave many Capetonians an opportunity to experience not only rugby but the stadium itself.

Pascoe said it was better to use the stadium for music concerts and the occasional football match than leave it to decay .

But Western Province Rugby Union president Thelo Wakefield denied the match meant the team had designs on the stadium.

"I want to make this clear - this is just an away game for the Stormers," said Wakefield.

Newlands will remain the traditional home of Western Province rugby, particularly as the Cape Town Stadium lacks debenture suite accommodation .

Pascoe said the request for debenture suites could be accommodated.

There is currently a public participation process on the fate of the stadium, which ends in March.

Mayor Patricia de Lille said the city would ask for a change to a "record of decision", allowing for business activities at the venue.

- Timeslive

Nkandla: Pressure on President to come clean

Cape Town - Political pressure is mounting on the government to make public the report of a Public Works task team that found R206 million had been spent on President Jacob Zuma’s private home at Nkandla.

DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko said Zuma should “come clean” on whether he saw a letter addressed to him in November 2010 by then-minister of public works Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde, whom he later sacked.

Initially published by City Press and the Mail & Guardian, and now in the public domain, the letter, addressed to Zuma, is a progress report on work at Nkandla and lists improvements that were being made. These included the supply of water, electricity and a sewerage treatment plant; a helipad, clinic, tuckshop, guard room, cattle culvert, bullet-proof and high-impact windows, a tunnel and “safe haven” as well as inner and outer security fencing.

Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi – along with Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele – have insisted that Zuma was not aware of the cost of the exercise, which is likely to rise.

The letter to Zuma does not reflect the cost of the items, but merely states that the funds for security and related matters would come from Public Works, while “direct contracts” would be for Zuma’s personal account.

Mazibuko said she would submit a series of parliamentary questions to Zuma to try to establish “the true extent of his involvement”.

“This correspondence directed to Mr Zuma clearly contradicts the (Nxesi’s) concerted campaign to prove that the now-secret Nkandlagate report ‘vindicates’ him of all wrongdoing. Instead of answering key questions about President Zuma’s involvement, it targets low-ranking officials in the department.

“It is a slap in the face of accountability and transparency.”

Mazibuko said South Africans deserved “to know the truth”.

“When public money is abused for the unnecessary benefit of a sitting president, it has the potential severely to undermine trust in public institutions in general and in the government in particular.

“Our constitution sets out clearly the ethics and principles upon which our democratic South Africa is founded,” she said.

“It is about time Mr Zuma took these seriously and did what is right: come clean on Nkandla now.”

On Sunday, Nxesi cited security issues as the reason for withholding the report.

He said the report would be handed to law enforcement agencies for investigation and possible criminal charges against officials whose flouting of procedures gave rise to the many irregularities uncovered by the probe. The investigation also found R48m of the R206m bill had been spent in consultancy fees.

The IFP and Freedom Front Plus have added their voices to calls by the DA, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party for the report to be tabled in Parliament, where the public spending watchdog, the standing committee on public accounts, is delving into the matter.

IFP MP Petros Sithole said not enough information had been provided at the briefing.

“The minister’s vague and superfluous rendition of the report… failed to provide exact details about the renovation of (Zuma’s) home,” he said.

Parliament needed to be provided with a “detailed account of each and every single cent spent in this waste of taxpayers’ money”.

“Withholding this report from the public shows that there are more secrets behind this issue, which the minister is not willing (for the public to see),” Sithole said yesterday.

Pieter Groenewald, the FF Plus spokesman on public works, said: “The comprehensive report must be made public and (Nxesi) cannot hide behind security.”

Groenewald said the government should also say what the annual costs were to run Nkandla.

Auditor-General Terence Nombembe is already investigating the Nkandla spending, as is Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, whose report is expected to be ready in March.

- Political Bureau

J783 might still be liable for Nkandla's security costs

The Act government has used to back its funding of the security upgrades to Nkandla holds the owner of the national key point liable for the costs.

President Jacob Zuma might be financially responsible in his personal capacity for over R200-million spent on beefing up security at his Nkandla homestead.

According to current legislation governing the protection of national key points, the National Key Points Act of 1980 dictates that the owner of a property designated for state protection is personally liable for the costs of security measures demanded by the state.

"On receipt of a notice, the owner of the national key point concerned shall after consultation with the minister at his own expense take steps to the satisfaction of the minister in respect of the security of the said key point," section 3.1 of the Act reads.

Moreover if the owner of a national key point does not undertake the stipulated upgrades they could face a fine of up to R20 000 and/or a prison sentence of up to five years, the Act states.

The piece of legislation has been used in part to defend state spending at the president's rural residence and also utilised to defend the secrecy maintained by the government in relation to the work carried out.

​Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi said on Sunday a ministerial investigation found no evidence of state funds being used to upgrade President Jacob Zuma's private rural residence in Nkandla.

But Nxesi did confirm to journalists during a briefing on the ministerial inquiry into the matter that over R200-million of department money was spent on upgrading security at the residence after it was declared a national key point in April 2010. He claimed the costs incurred were commensurate with securing the premises as a national key point.

Doing the math

According to Nxesi, R71-million was spent directly on security features such as bulletproof windows, security fencing, evacuation mechanisms and firefighting equipment. A further R135-million was spent on operational costs incurred by state departments involved in the upgrade.

Nxesi added that the report remained secret and would not be released lest security details of the Nkandla homestead become public.

The renovations at the president's rural residence have been a bone of contention since 2012, when it was reported over R250-million of public funds would be used for renovations to the homestead.

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, Parliament's standing committee on public accounts and auditor general Terence Nombembe are also investigating the matter in addition to the ministerial inquiry Nxesi instituted.

Legislation defending the move

Besides the contentious legislation that was used to defend the move, the costs seem to have flouted other suggested norms pertaining to the state funding of security measures for politicians.

The limit allowed in the controversial ministerial handbook for security upgrades at the private residences of executive members of Cabinet is a meagre R100 000.

The state expenditure at the president's rural homestead is thus two thousand times the proposed limit prescribed in the handbook. But the state might find a defence for their expenditure in certain parts of the Act.

Section 3B of the Act declares that state money can be provided to "defray expenditure in connection with the safeguarding of key points".

According to the Act this might come in the form of a loan to the owner of the designated national key point.

'A moot point'

"This is now a moot point though," constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos told the Mail & Guardian on Monday.

"The department of public works is no longer using this as their sole method of defending the Nkandla upgrades, so it would be difficult to see this being employed as a sole method of defence."

Despite several attempts to gain clarity from the department of public works on their use of the Act as a defence for the state expenditure at the president's rural homestead, the department did not respond to calls for comment.

- M&G

Nkandla paper being referred to protector

The Christian Democratic Party on Monday said it was referring a document on President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla home to the public protector.

"Levels of mismanagement of taxpayers’ money have become such a daily occurrence that it seems as though government believes it that it has now been let off the hook," CDP leader Theunis Botha said in a statement.

"Too many questions remain unanswered. The fact remains that far too much money was spent and covered up as supposedly security measures."

On Sunday Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi announced the findings of an investigation into the money spent on Nkandla.

He said the government spent R206m on security upgrades and consultants. Included in this amount was R135m for "operational needs", R71m for consultants and security features such as bulletproof windows, security fencing, evacuation mechanisms, and firefighting equipment, he told reporters in Pretoria.

‘R1.5bn spent’

Also included in the total was R26m to make changes to the project (variation orders).

Botha said a document about Nkandla was circulated in numerous e-mails. This was the document the CDP would refer to Public Protector Thuli Madonsela. 

According to this document R1.5bn, which included the Nkandla highway, was actually spent.

Botha could not say who wrote the document.

"We feel it is vital that the public protector evaluate the validity of the claims in the e-mail, before completing the Nkandla investigation," he said.

"Accusations of such a kind have to be investigated. If what is in it [document] is true... it's very serious. 

"If people are spreading rumours... they need to be brought to book on it," said Botha.

"South Africans deserve to be informed about what is really taking place."

- SAPA

Man dies in shack fire

Cape Town - A man died in a shack fire in Gugulethu on Monday morning, a Cape Town city official said.

The blaze started around 3.20am at the Barcelona informal settlement, disaster risk centre spokesman Wilfred Solomons-Johannes said.

Three shacks were destroyed, displacing three people.

Zanemzula Maxwell Mkunqwna, 37, sustained serious burns and died at the scene. The fire was extinguished just after 4am. The cause was being investigated.

- Sapa

Nkandla millions ‘whitewash’

The government has finally admitted that it spent R206 million of public funds on security and “operational requirements” at President Jacob Zuma’s private Nkandla residence, including more than R71m on security.

But Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa said on Sunday this spending was “justifiable”, despite an investigation uncovering a range of irregularities that could have inflated the price by millions.

At a briefing promptly labelled by the DA as “a whitewash”, Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi reported back on the probe by the in-house task team he appointed in November to investigate allegations that the state had spent nearly a quarter-of-a-billion rand on Nkandla.

He was flanked by Justice Minister Jeff Radebe, State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele and Mthethwa.

Beyond the R206m for security and the “operational requirements”, no public funds were spent on Nkandla, Nxesi said.

“The report will not be made available to the public,” he added, citing security issues.

Zuma’s Nkandla home was listed under the National Key Points Act in April 2010, which protects disclosure, nearly a year after he came into office.

Instead, the report would be forwarded to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), the auditor-general and the SAPS to probe “any possible acts of criminality” in irregularities uncovered.

This is likely to spark a fresh row, with DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko saying on Sunday she would fight to have the report put before Parliament “to be fully scrutinised and debated”.

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and Auditor-General Terence Nombembe are busy with their own investigations, which Mazibuko said she hoped would “independently shed light on the many unanswered questions”.

Mazibuko expressed shock at the lack of “willingness on the part of the government to admit that spending this amount on one man’s home is ethically and lawfully wrong”.

Nxesi said “many” Department of Public Works officials at national and regional level were involved in possible violations of supply chain management procedures and Treasury prescripts.

“It is very clear that there were a number of irregularities with regard to the appointment of service providers and procurement of goods and services,” he said.

This included the price variations “way beyond” the permissible 20 percent limit, and a total bill of R48m paid to consultants.

The possibility of the government being charged inflated prices by consultants comes against the shock report by the auditor-general last week that as much as R102 billion had been spent on their fees by national and provincial departments over the past three financial years.

Nxesi said department officials would face “immediate” disciplinary action where procedures had been flouted, and unethical consultants would be reported to their professional bodies.

Radebe said law enforcement agencies would be tracking down all the officials implicated in the irregularities to hold them accountable.

Supply-chain management policy and prescripts “were not fully complied with in procurement of goods and services in the project”. The Treasury allows for a maximum 20 percent variation on an initial order.

KwaZulu-Natal Public Works officials appear to have been given carte blanche in negotiating contracts.

“The investigation revealed that an approval was granted to the regional bid evaluation committee to adopt a negotiated and nomination procedure in appointing contractors despite this being a national project,” Nxesi said, adding that their powers would be urgently reviewed.

Zuma’s lack of awareness of the work being done and the amounts involved were repeatedly emphasised by all four cabinet ministers.

“The money that was spent by the state was for these security upgrades.

“Was the president involved? The answer is no. No money of the state was used for the upgrade of the private residence of the president,” Radebe said.

Cwele stressed that Zuma did not sign off on the upgrades determined by an assessment and implemented by Public Works.

Nxesi said Zuma and his family upgraded their residence in 2008 and were not involved in the “design or implementation” of security measures or in determining the needs of state departments involved, such as the SANDF and police.

He blamed inflation for the cost of the Nkandla security upgrade amounting to more than the costs for those carried out on former presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki’s private homes.

None of the ministers directly answered the question whether they believed R206m was a reasonable sum to spend on upgrading a single residence, or whether an apology was due to the public.

“I am not sure what public apology you are talking about, being accountable is to say how we have spent the money,” said Nxesi. “We are accountable, we are opening up, we are going beyond the normal practice when it comes to the issue of secrecy.”

Nxesi’s legal adviser, Phillip Masilo, said the R135 208 022 operational needs included the helipad, houses for the SAPS and defence force members, and the clinic.

But Masilo could not be drawn into elaborating what exactly were the other operational issues.

“I can’t do that… We can’t report on certain things. That will compromise security.”

How much it cost

Project initiated: 2009

Initial costs: R6.4 million

Later: Top-secret document revealed in mid-2012

* The project to cost more than R100m

Updated Public Works presentation in 2012

* Total expenditure: R89m

* Out of Zuma’s pocket: R23m

2012 September reports

* Project rocketed to R203m

* Out of Zuma’s pocket declines to R10.6m

Later in 2012, new Public Works document reveals

* Cost for the projects rockets to R248m

Latest figures according to Minister Nxesi: January 2013

* Total expenditure: R206m

* R135m for “operational needs”

* R71m for consultants and security upgrades, including bullet-proof windows and security fencing

Other features of project

* A helipad

* Rondavels for bodyguards

* Bunkers

* Clinic

* Two astroturf soccer pitches

* Tennis court

- The Star

Public protector's Nkandla investigation continues

Thuli Madonsela's investigation into the upgrade of Jacob Zuma's rural home will continue despite the outcomes of a public works report on the matter.

Public protector Thuli Madonsela will surge ahead with her investigation into the multimillion-rand upgrade of PresidentJacob Zuma's rural homestead in Nkandla – in spite of a public works report released on Sunday that "exonerated" the president.

"In view of the release of this report, I will continue the investigations into the matter and aim to conclude and deliver my report by no later than March 31," Madonsela told the Mail & Guardian on Sunday.

Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi said on Sunday a ministerial investigation found no evidence of state funds being used to upgrade President Jacob Zuma's private rural residence in Nkandla.

"There is no evidence that public money was used to fund upgrades at the private residence of President Jacob Zuma in Nkandla," he said after releasing the departmental report on the matter on Sunday. He also insisted that Zuma was not aware of the details regarding the upgrades.

But the Mail & Guardian on Sunday published a letter that shows the president was kept up to date on the progress of the renovations of his home in rural Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal.

• Read the letter here

Nxesi minister did confirm to journalists during a briefing on the ministerial inquiry that over R200-million of department money was spent on beefing up security at the residence after it was declared a national key point in April 2010.

He claimed the costs incurred were commensurate with securing the premises as a national keypoint.

Secret document

According to the report, R71-million was spent directly on security, while a further R135-million was spent on operational costs incurred by state departments involved in the upgrade.

Nxesi added that the report remained secret and would not be released lest security details of the Nkandla homestead become public.

But Madonsela told the M&G she would need to scrutinise the public works report as part of her inquiry, adding she would request a full copy to assist in her department's own investigations.

At this stage, it remains unclear if public works will release a copy of the report to the public protector, with the department failing to respond to a call for comment late on Sunday.

There was also mixed reaction to the release of Nxesi's report, with the ANC claiming it cleared Zuma of any wrongdoing and opposition parties saying it amounted to a whitewash.

"This report vindicates the president and our belief in the innocence of the president in this regard, on what he consistently said were lies and that he personally built his residence," Jackson Mthembu, ANC spokesperson said in response to the report.

Mthembu said the matter should now come to a close.

'Fixed opinions'

"We call on all South Africans including those with fixed opinions on this matter to accept what is an outcome of a professional and independent report," he added.

But Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko said the report was a poor attempt to prevent Zuma from being held accountable.

"There was absolutely no willingness on the part of government to admit to South Africans today that spending this amount on one man's home is ethically and lawfully wrong," Mazibuko said via a statement.

"Minister Nxesi must not think that the findings of this 'secret' report will stop questions from being asked."

Mazibuko's comments were echoed by Congress of the People president Mosiuoa Lekota.

"It is unacceptable that any public money has been used in this fashion to develop the private residence of a politician. We should not be led to believe it was above board," he said.

More investigations

Along with the public protector's report, an investigation by the auditor general and the standing committee on public accounts are being carried out on the Nkandla upgrades.

"We are going to engage the department on this report and take action from there," the committee's chairperson Themba Godi told the M&G.

"All investigations should be allowed to carry on regardless of these developments. The fact that they've produce this report might help our own investigations, but it doesn't mean it will curtail it."

- M&G

Nkandla: The letter that shows Zuma was aware of the upgrades

The M&G is publishing a letter that dispels Thula Nxesi's insistence that Jacob Zuma knew nothing of the R200-million upgrades to his Nkandla home.

The letter, containing a detailed progress report for presentation to President Jacob Zuma, was sent on November 5 2010 by the department's minister at the time, Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde. It stipulated the work done on the security installations at Zuma's private residence.

• See the letter here

The letter forms part of a number of documents that the M&G reported on last year, which showed that Zuma was indeed provided with exhaustive details about progress on the Nkandla security project in November 2010. This was after he stated in Parliament that he was not aware of the scale of construction on the project.

On Sunday Nxesi told journalists that after a ministerial investigation into Nkandla's funding, there was no evidence that state monies were used in its upgrades. But he confirmed over R200-million had been used on security measures after the property had been deemed a national key point. He added that Zuma was not aware of any details regarding the upgrades.

The documents, which referred euphemistically to the Nkandla expansion as "prestige project A", revealed how Zuma's supposed private contribution dwindled by half from more than R20-million to slightly more than R10-million, while the total costs more than doubled.

They also showed that state funds were spent on buildings for the personal use of the Zuma family and not only for new, adjoining security infrastructure, as claimed by the department of public works when first confronted about the R250-million spent on Nkandla.

The renovations at the president's rural residence became a bone of contention in 2012, when it was reported that over R250-million of public funds would be used for the upgrades.

The report instituted by Nxesi confirmed the state paid R206-million for the security measures.

According to the report, R71-million was spent directly on security, while a further R135-million was spent on operational costs incurred by state departments involved in the upgrade.

- M&G