Zuma not responsible for Nkandla - ANC

Cape Town - President Jacob Zuma bears no responsibility for overspending at his Nkandla home, ANC MPs said on Tuesday as they continued Parliament's consideration of the matter.

The parliamentary committee on Nkandla resumed without the opposition who withdrew in protest last week.

"It cannot be that there was enrichment that came about as the result of an error of judgment of someone and that the president has something to pay," senior ANC MP Mathole Motshekga said.

Motshekga made the remark after telling his five ANC colleagues in the committee he maintained his view that Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's findings were not binding and so the committee did not have to enforce them.

Madonsela ordered as remedial action that the president repay a portion of the R246m spent on security upgrades at his private Nkandla homestead in KwaZulu-Natal.

Motshekga said Madonsela had not expressly found that the president had violated the Executive Members' Ethics Code as she used the words "may have" in her report released in March.

Therefore, he said: "One should be upfront here and say the president has not violated any code of conduct.

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

All opposition parties walked out of the committee on Friday because of a fundamental disagreement with the ANC's position on the status of findings made by the public protector.

They accused the ANC of undermining her office to protect Zuma.

- SAPA

Nkandla files laptop stolen

The office of the man representing the 12 Nkandla “scapegoats” has been burgled - on the eve of the civil servants’ potentially explosive hearings.

Having somehow got past guards and into an 11th floor Durban union office, they stole the personal laptop of Claude Naicker, KwaZulu-Natal manager of the Public Servants Association (PSA), while ignoring DVD players, other valuables and all other offices.

Elevator cameras were “not working” on Friday night, when building security believe the break-in happened.

Misconduct charges

Naicker’s team is representing 12 public works officials who on Tuesday will be formally charged with misconduct and tens of millions in irregular expenditure on the upgrade to President Jacob Zuma's home. He said two more officials on Monday requested representation in the disciplinary hearings, bringing the total to 12.

Naicker revealed his labour relations officer Roshan Lil-Ruthan would request postponements in all 12 cases on Tuesday, “so we can receive and read the evidence brought by the employer”.

A report by the Special Investigating Unit (SUI) fingers the officials for breaching procurement procedures, but admits none of the employees benefitted financially for their alleged misconduct.

While former public works directors-general are also facing charges, no politician has yet been charged or disciplined in the R246m overspending scandal.

Nkandla files

On Monday, the PSA held a meeting to discuss what Nkandla materials were on the laptop and whether it could have been targeted by unknown parties concerned about the employees’ testimony.

One assistant told Naicker: “They must have been after your Nkandla files.”

The Witness understands some stokvel money may also have been taken.

However, Naicker said he was more sceptical, saying he considered an Nkandla-related motive for the crime a “remote possibility - maybe a five percent chance”.

“But you never know. If that’s what it was about, that would be chilling,” he said.

He said: “The first thing my staff said to me was: ‘How much Nkandla material was on there?’ It was strange they only went to my office and only took my laptop and did not take the DVD player there or some liquor that was there from a previous party.

“Also, they went to a great deal of trouble to get in - we have a pretty immovable padlock; they had to go through a small glass pane. The reason I don’t think it was connected is that there have been other break-ins in recently”.

Security concerns

He said some of the public servants represented by the PSA have expressed concerns about their personal security during the multi-week disciplinary process.

Naicker’s team interviewed the 12 public works employees last week, but said their interviews had not been downloaded to his laptop.

Among them is project manager Jean Rindel - facing eight charges of misconduct. Like his colleagues, Rindel has denied all charges.

While Lil-Ruthan has called his clients “scapegoats”, Naicker said: “I’m hesitant to use words like scapegoat or fall-guy - it may be an unfortunate case of a department wanting to be seen to be fully investigating a very public problem. But these charges are unfair - and they are already having a negative impact on these members and their families. The signs of stress and anguish are clearly visible; there is real concern about loss of jobs for people who have served the department diligently for decades in some cases.”

He said the laptop had held “valuable information”, but that much of it was “personal”.

- The Witness

Cars set alight as Hangberg erupts

Cape Town - Cars were set alight and buildings damaged early on Tuesday morning as the Hangberg housing saga erupted again. The Panorama Hill complex, an upmarket block of flats at the entrance to Hangberg, became the target of angry residents who burned and damaged six cars after a community member was arrested.

On Tuesday morning, rocks and tree branches littered the road at the entrance to Hangberg as a police Nyala parked close by.

Tenants from the complex inspected the damage to their vehicles as more police arrived.

A block away, the Hout Bay harbour market was in disarray as sculptures, paintings, crockery and an ATM were damaged and silverware allegedly stolen.

Yellow police tape cordoned off the area.

A teacher who lives in Panorama Hill building assessed the damage to her car on Tuesday morning.

Her white Corsa was burnt on the right side and its windows were shattered.

“There was a lot of screaming and shouting at around 3am.

“A flare was thrown on the car parked next to mine.”

She added that residents were afraid.

“It is heartbreaking, especially when children are involved too.

“Children and adults were throwing stones and rocks.”

Another resident said she heard what sounded like gunshots after midnight and couldn’t sleep.

“I heard stones and went to look through the window when I saw people climbing over the wall.

“I saw them light the cars and then I started to pray.

“Apparently, they were promised this land and it is the second or third time they have done this.”

The violence was related to the arrest of Tony Jonker early on Tuesday morning for “breaching a high court order”.

The land at the centre of the dispute is above Hangberg, on a firebreak between the community and SANParks land.

A 2011 court order came after extensive mediation between the land owners and the community, facilitated by the Peace & Mediation Forum, whose agreement was made an order of the court. The order prevents any further construction on the land, for health and safety reasons - and it was this which the court acted on on Tuesday.

Jonkers’s mother Fadwah Vardien said her 8-year-old grandson was traumatised by the arrest.

“I am very angry. It is the third time police came to my son’s place, beating him and arresting him. How many times must my grandson see his father treated like this?

Her son’s structure was one of the first illegally built in 2010 and one of the first to be destroyed.

“When the court order was granted (to evict illegal structures) he had already rebuilt. So his structure was already there.

“The court order came afterwards.”

Roscoe Jacobs from the Hout Bay Civic Association said arrests of community members were a “huge miscarriage of justice”.

“Evictions are still taking place. People have become very frustrated. The arrest on Tuesday morning is the fourth or fifth since last year. The court order stems from 2012 for people who built their structures illegally in 2009 and 2010.”

“How long will this court order from 2012 be valid for?

“There is a lot of uncertainty in the community and the only reason they continue to build is because the city and provincial government did not address their issues properly.”

The community would challenge the court order. “We will continue until the mayor and premier properly address this. The mediation process has failed and had taken place behind closed doors in the past.

“We need to come together and work towards the best interest of the community.”

Police spokesman Andre Traut said on Tuesday morning: “At this stage, the situation has calmed down and no one has been arrested on charges of public violence as yet.”

Alderman JP Smith, Mayco member for Safety and Security, said: “Members of the community of Hangberg invaded a fire break. They were in breach of a court order and it was unsafe for them to reside there.

“As part of the city’s commitment to building a safe city for our residents, we were obliged to serve them with a notice. Upon doing so, members of our city staff were repeatedly attacked.

“For more than a year and a half the city tried to engage with these individuals constructively.

“They refused to comply and on Tuesday morning the SAPS moved in in order to arrest those who were in breach of said court order.”

natasha.bezuidenhout@inl.co.za mwargusmobile@live.co.za

- Cape Argus

Cape’s R15.7m stadium upkeep plan

Cape Town - The City of Cape Town has set aside R15.7 million for “corrective and preventative” maintenance at Cape Town Stadium.

Garreth Bloor, the mayoral committee member for tourism, events and economic development, said: “The Cape Town Stadium has a maintenance strategy to ensure that the current structure, systems and facilities are maintained according to industry standards for structural elements. Such maintenance is essential to prevent potential larger maintenance costs in the future.”

The stadium has been running at an annual loss of R40m since Sail de France terminated its management contract with the city. The operating costs since 2009 are more than R400m.

The city is seeking to change zoning restrictions that will allow it to use the stadium precinct for commercial activities. This process is still under way, as well as a consideration of possible business plan models.

Talks with the South African Rugby Union about moving games from Newlands to the stadium are understood to be continuing.

The city invested R3m in this weekend’s Rugby Championship clash between the Springboks and the Wallabies, with the condition that “the support of this event will assist with current negotiations between the city and Western Province Rugby for future events to be held at the Cape Town Stadium”.

Bloor said the three tenders advertised for upgrades and replacements at the stadium were the “first tranche” of maintenance work. These included a tender for new lifts. The stadium currently has two operational lifts and because of the volume of people passing through the venue during events, an additional four lifts have to be installed.

The second tender was for the upgrade and replacement of the stadium’s turnstiles.

Bloor said the city wanted to replace the British service provider with a local company. Other information technology-related equipment would also be replaced in keeping with international best practice

“The stadium is currently within that five-year (turnaround) cycle and to maintain a good functioning facility, it is prudent to start the process now.”

- Cape Argus

Will Nkandla break Parliament and SA's democracy with it?

The “Eiffel Tower” code allegedly consenting to corruption, the Spy Tapes transcripts, the mystery of the Russian nuclear deal, the deadlock in Parliament over Nkandla – where does it stop? President Jacob Zuma has been plagued by controversy and scandal many times in his life. Now, however, his presidency is teetering close to the edge and there is no telling which of the various crises swirling around him will push it to the tipping point, if any. This time, there is also a pushback from opposition parties against ANC efforts to protect the president. One option, says Julius Malema, is for the opposition to withdraw completely from Parliament. What then? By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.

There has never been as much public focus on Parliament as there has been in the past four months. It is becoming virtually impossible for any major issue to be debated in Parliament without heated exchanges, MPs being asked to leave the House, the presiding officers being tested or opposition parties walking out.

Parliamentary debates are meant to be vigorous affairs. A clash of viewpoints is almost obligatory as political parties have different policies, interests and perspectives. But the atmosphere in the South African Parliament these days is by no means normal and there is a growing sense that a huge explosion is coming. What exactly? That remains to be seen.

It is important to note that none of the major battles in Parliament in the new term have been over policy or disputes over legislation. They have all, directly or indirectly, been about President Zuma. The ANC has had to go to extraordinary lengths to shield the president from the newest opposition onslaught. The entry of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in Parliament has sparked new militancy in the opposition, forcing other parties to step up their own pace.

EFF leader Julius Malema and Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane are finding common ground and building a working rapport, and several of the minority parties are following suit. The ANC finds this difficult to fathom and they expected that other opposition parties would have been cautious about working with the EFF. But when it comes to a grand corruption scandal like the state spending on the president’s home at Nkandla, opposition parties have discovered that their voices are most effective when they work in tandem.

The Nkandla matter will not be easy to contend with – for either the ANC or the opposition parties. At the crux of the battle in the ad hoc committee is whether Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s recommendations in her Nkandla report are advisory or mandatory. Her recommendations included that Zuma should pay back a “reasonable percentage” of the benefits he received unduly and take action against the ministers allowed the exorbitant spending on the project.

The easiest way out, it would seem, would be for Zuma to comply with the recommendations and everyone could move on. But the matter is not as simple as that. The only wrongdoing Zuma has ever admitted to in the series of scandals he had been immersed in was to acknowledge that he had sex without a condom with the woman who accused him of raping her, and apologised for it. In that instance, he was criminally charged and had to admit the facts in order to defend himself in court.

For as long as Zuma is not in the dock, answering questions and standing accountable are not among his list of priorities. Opposition parties in the ad hoc committee on Nkandla therefore want him to appear before them so that he has to answer the questions that he had rebuffed from Madonsela and the Special Investigating Unit.

As DA MP James Selfe put it: “If you look at all the reports, there is a type of scheme that permeates all of them. That is the elephant in the room, the extent of knowledge and consent by the president of South Africa”.

The ANC is well aware that Zuma will not be prepared to answer those questions and therefore need to avoid the possibility of him being placed in the position where he has to. They also know that the opposition, particularly the EFF, would go for the jugular the moment they are presented with the opportunity to question the president. In order to prevent this opportunity from presenting itself, the ANC has to make sure that it relegates Madonsela’s findings and recommendations to an advisory role.

From their side, the opposition cannot let this issue go either. Malema had promised his constituency that he would take on Zuma and the ANC, and the Nkandla matter is as good as it will probably ever get. Malema knows he has the moral high ground and that sections of society that would ordinarily not look in his direction have a grudging respect for the way he is pursuing Zuma on Nkandla.

Maimane has also a lot to prove. Nkandla was his predecessor Lindiwe Mazibuko’s baby. She was the complainant to the Public Protector and the person who tried all possible means to hold Zuma accountable. Maimane came in to Parliament somewhat wet behind the ears and appeared out of his depth initially. However, the Nkandla matter has given him a foothold, and together with Malema, they are marshalling the opposition in a united front against the ANC.

But the matter in question is the enforceability of Madonsela’s recommendations. Under ordinary circumstances, the Public Protector makes recommendations, which are then submitted to the president, who then takes the necessary action. She has no powers to enforce the recommendations. The additional problem is that the person she would ordinarily submit her recommendations to is also the subject of the investigation and the person affected by her proposed remedial action.

Zuma’s correspondence makes it clear that he considers Madonsela’s recommendations to be advisory and that there is no obligation on him to do exactly what she says. Speaking on eNCA’s Judge for Yourself on Sunday, Madonsela said her understanding of the law and Constitution was that the president should respond to her report in its entirety, and if he was of the view that she had acted “irrationally”, he should say so to Parliament. Parliament could then consider her report together with Zuma’s detailed response and “look at whether the president is more rational than myself”, Madonsela said.

But Zuma has not responded in detail to Madonsela’s report, neither has pronounced on her recommendations – other than to defer responsibility for deciding whether he should pay back the money to the Minister of Police. The ad hoc committee therefore cannot properly consider the matter and decide whether the remedial action is appropriate without all the facts. In any event, neither the president nor Parliament can overturn the finding of the Public Protector’s report as only the courts have the authority to do so.

And so the Mexican stand-off persisted in the ad hoc committee for two days last week until the opposition parties eventually walked out, saying they refused to be part of the cover up and defiance of the Constitution being orchestrated by the ANC. By doing so, they left the ANC as the only remaining members of the ad hoc committee, who could now go ahead and prepare a report for the National Assembly based on just their perspectives.

Walkouts might not be the best opposition when the ANC has the numbers to vote on their own. This was what happened during the motion of no confidence debate against the Speaker of Parliament Baleka Mbete, when the ANC voted against the opposition’s motion after they walked out. This is likely to recur on the Nkandla matter.

The opposition parties do not have many options for as long as the ANC can outvote them. They have the option of going to court to force judicial intervention in the matter. There is no guarantee that they would succeed because of the separation of powers rule. They can fight the might in the National Assembly once the ad hoc committee’s report is tabled. But again, with the ANC having overwhelming voting power, they can vote for the House to adopt the report.

Once that happens, the matter would have passed through Parliament without Zuma answering the questions the opposition parties want answered. There will probably not have the opportunity to pin him down on the issue again.

Malema has flagged one other possibility – the scorched earth option. He has threatened that the opposition parties withdraw from Parliament altogether – meaning that they surrender their electoral representation. Such a move would have far reaching consequences. It would render South Africa a one-party state with no opposition exercising oversight over the executive in Parliament. It would mean that the ANC could vote for any policies or legislation without input from opposition parties. It would mean that the votes of millions of people who supported opposition parties would be nullified.

But should that happen, the opposition would fight the ANC outside the bounds of Parliament. ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe’s warning of “rebels” fighting government would then not be so far fetched. It means South Africa would no longer be a multiparty democracy but an illegitimate one.

Is that really where the Nkandla scandal will take South Africa? Could government and Parliament become illegitimate just so that Zuma can avoid answering questions? Who then exercises oversight over the R1 trillion nuclear deal that already has a fishy stench? Who then asks the hard questions when the opposition is outside the parliamentary framework?

The opposition parties and the ANC better think long and hard before the next steps are taken. There is still ways to pull the situation back from the brink. But hot heads and desperation can push the situation over the edge of the precipice. Unrest and instability could ensue which would be devastating to the economy.

On Tuesday, the ad hoc committee reconvenes. Rationality is desperately needed from both sides. The future of South Africa’s constitutional democracy could depend on it how they deal with the “elephant in the room” – the extent of knowledge and consent by the president of South Africa.

It is in fact the question that hangs over every scandal surrounding the president. And in none of these matters is he prepared to provide a straight answer.

But with every new scandal, the ability of South Africa's fledgling democracy to absorb the hits and heal the bruises is slowly vanishing. Nkandla could just be the one that could finally break the democracy itself. The one which, if not resolved properly, could render rest of the Parliament's term a farce, taking down the entire system with it, the system that the ANC spent an entire century fighting for. 

- DM

Nkandla scapegoats won’t go down without a fight

The fightback campaign by 10 public works officials taking the fall for the R246m spent on upgrades to President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home begins on Monday. 

City Press understands that the officials will plead not guilty when their hearings kick off.

They face a raft of charges,ranging from financial misconduct and allowing irregular expenditure or fruitless and wasteful expenditure to occur, to prejudicing the administration of the department and misconduct for failing to ensure contractors were appointed in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective manner.

The officials, who occupy senior positions, also face charges for contravening the public service’s code of conduct.

But five of them, who spoke to City Press on condition of anonymity, say they are nothing more than scapegoats made to take the fall for their political bosses – former public works minister Geoff Doidge and his former deputy Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu.

“The only thing that is left for us is to grow goatees and horns, and we will be the perfect scapegoats for them. If ministers were also charged for applying the pressure on us to cut corners, leading to us not following the law, then we would understand.

But to blame officials who were scared to put a foot wrong is abominable,” said one official.

Another said: “The charge sheets say we made or permitted the unauthorised expenditure, irregular expenditure or fruitless and wasteful expenditure in Nkandla. But all the political leadership was there with us at all times. If we made mistakes, it was because they made us do it.

"We couldn’t question them when they wanted the processes to move faster because that is frowned on, and we were scared of losing our jobs.”

A third said: “I am still confused because throughout this project, I thought I was following instructions from above.

"No one in this group of people charged ever questioned why we were not following the policy on tenders because those who were supposed to point these things out were there in [the] meetings – senior people including ministers and DGs [directors general]. It would be better if all of those involved in Nkandla, including ministers, are in the same boat.”

The five denied ever personally benefiting from the Nkandla project.

“What did I gain for working on that project? Nothing,” said a fourth official.

Secrecy

“I didn’t commit any fraud or corruption and did as I was told – even when sometimes we should have asked hard questions, we didn’t because there was secrecy around the entire project.

When tenders were advertised, we went straight to companies and appointed them on instruction because they were already working on Nkandla.

It can’t be that now that there are problems around Nkandla the workers must take the fall alone. But I am not worried because I believe I did nothing wrong … I am not scared.

I know it’s hard for my family to see my name associated with bad things about Nkandla and that makes me very unhappy.”

Public works legal adviser Phillip Masilo said the State attorney’s office had appointed independent chairpersons to preside over the hearings.

But lawyers for the accused have asked the department to conduct one “collective” disciplinary inquiry.

“We have considered postponing the disciplinary hearings to consider the lawyers’ request for a collective hearing, but a decision has not been made,” Masilo said.

The hearings are set from Monday until 21 October.

'Not guilty'

Claude Naicker, the KwaZulu-Natal manager for the Public Service Association, representing six of the officials, said: “They will all plead not guilty because they are innocent.”

The officials, according to him, were very worried because if they were found guilty they would lose their jobs.

“These are very senior officials who are fully aware of the rules and procedures that must be followed, and they admit that they have strictly abided by the rules in the past. So why would they, knowing the law, be unprocedural in their conduct? It’s because they took instructions from above and that’s the only time they would ever breach the rules because their superiors told them to,” he said.

“They also want the department to show them the proof of how they benefited from breaking the law. They ­haven’t said who should take the fall for Nkandla, but it will definitely come out during their disciplinary hearings.”

Walkout

On Friday, opposition parties walked out of the parliamentary committee on Nkandla, refusing to legitimise a process they said would shield Zuma from any liability.

The ANC, which has a majority on the committee, will go ahead without them.

The walkout happened after ANC committee members refused to agree to call Zuma to answer questions, and to enforce Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s finding that he should repay some of what was spent on his home.

The ANC committee members said that there was no need to call witnesses and that Zuma would not have been aware of wrongdoing by officials. They also said they had the right to recommend alternative corrective action.

SIU denied

Sources within the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), which also probed the Nkandla spending, say they were denied “crucial” information by five companies Zuma appointed to work on his Nkandla home.

The companies – R&G Consultants, Igoda Projects, Ibhongo, Minenhle Makhanya Architects and Moneymine – hired by public works as they were ­already working on Zuma’s home, ­refused to respond to letters asking if they had been paid, and how much, for “private work” by Zuma or his family.

Instead, they responded with lawyers’ letters, saying they had no right to the information because the SIU’s terms of reference did not include private payments made by the Zuma family.

Another SIU source said they left it at that because of growing pressure to ­release their report.

Pamela Mfeka, a director of Moneymine, which received more than R50m , declined to comment, saying: “I ­haven’t been to the office for two weeks.”

Dumi Gqwaru, the CEO of R&G Consultants, which was paid R13.7m, said he would only answer “official” questions.

Igoda, which was paid R2.5m, failed to respond to questions.

A secretary at Ibhongo asked that questions be sent next week because “there is no one here to answer your questions”.

The architect’s case

But it is not only the SIU that is battling to get answers from Nkandla contractors.

The “huge task” of serving papers on those implicated in the SIU report has delayed attempts by Makhanya’s lawyer, Barnabus Xulu, to join them as respondents in the civil case, which will force them to account for money received.

Xulu wanted to file the formal application to have the other entities added last Friday, but there were too many to serve papers on.

He said the process was going ahead, as was his bid to force the state to provide him with classified SA National Defence Force and SA Police Service security assessments and project budgets. The departments agreed this week to allow him to read the recommendations but not file them in court.

“Giving us the right to view the documents is not sufficient. This action is about requesting further and full particulars, for which actual documents have to be before court,” he said.

- City Press

Parties walk out of Nkandla committee

Cape Town - Opposition parties on Friday withdrew from the parliamentary committee on Nkandla with the argument that they would not legitimise a process designed to shield President Jacob Zuma from liability for abuse of state funds.

"The opposition will not legitimise this blatant undermining of the Constitution for the protection of one man," the parties said.

The ANC's 6-5 majority on the committee means however that it still has a quorum and on Tuesday next week will continue its work in the absence of opposition MPs.

They walked out after the ruling party refused to agree to call Zuma to answer questions and to enforce Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's directive that he repay a portion of funds spent on the R246 million refurbishment of his home at Nkandla.

The ruling party maintained that there was no need to call witnesses and that the president would not have been aware of wrongdoing by officials, and that it had the right to recommend different corrective action.

Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema raised the threat that the opposition would withdraw on Thursday night after nine hours of heated debate failed to budge the ANC on these issues.

When the committee convened on Friday morning, senior ANC MP Mathole Motshekga sought to avert this by stalling a vote and invoking the ruling party tradition of seeking consensus.

But he then exasperated the opposition by arguing that though the Constitution offered a high degree of protection to Madonsela's office, it did not apply to the reports she produced.

Freedom Front Plus MP Corne Mulder termed it "a direct attack on the person of the public protector". EFF MP Godrich Gardee added that it meant the ANC was poised to revise Madonsela's finding and countered: "We are not the relevant authority, it can only be done by a court of law."

Motshekga also reiterated his view that Zuma had been right to assert last month that he was not bound by remedial action advanced by Madonsela, and rejected a united opposition plea to seek independent legal counsel to settle the argument.

Motshekga said lawyers always disagreed and the committee counted many members with legal backgrounds, including his own doctorate.

Gardee protested: "There is no sane legal mind that will come and give the interpretation given by the president of the powers of the public protector, which is what you are doing as foot soldiers."

After two and half hours in this vein, Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane concluded: "We have reached an impasse... What is clear to me, what is very apparent, is that the ANC is not going to agree to anything. They just want us to run a ritual.

"We cannot proceed on this level," he said before leading the DA, EFF, FF Plus, Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party out of the meeting.

The ANC called a media briefing at which ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakuda accused the opposition of acting in bad faith.

"It was clear from the outset that the opposition's desire was never to participate in the committee process in good faith, with a view to assist Parliament to arrive at sound resolutions on the matter."

But at their joint media briefing, opposition parties described the moment as a watershed and said they were deeply concerned that the ANC was subverting the role of Parliament.

Malema pointed to ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe's comments to the media earlier this week that Parliament must protect Zuma and Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa from insult and attack.

He said the walkout was "a serious political step" and raised the spectre of the opposition leaving Parliament entirely if the ANC did not allow the legislature to play its democratic role.

"You run a risk of people withdrawing completely from Parliament because there is no meaningful role they would play in Parliament... and once people withdraw from Parliament the spirit of our Constitution of multi-party democracy will be undermined.

"I don't think the ANC will pride itself for taking part in a Parliament that has no opposition presence. Actually they might be forced to collapse and go to elections but there is no motion about it on the table now."

The DA said the parties would now focus on settling the debate around the powers of the public protector, and if necessary it would go to court to hold Zuma to account for the Nkandla controversy.

DA federal executive chairman James Selfe said the upcoming Western Cape High Court ruling on the case of contested SABC chief operations officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng would prove pivotal.

In that case, the DA sought an urgent interdict forcing the SABC to suspend Motsoeneng, who was appointed to the post permanently despite Madonsela's finding that the public broadcaster should replace him within 90 days.

"The issues in law are absolutely identical," he said, adding that a ruling was expected shortly.

Selfe said if the DA did not win that case, it would take the matter all the way to the Constitutional Court to seek clarity on the status of the office of the public protector.

- Sapa

Zuma ‘cannot be held liable for misspending’

Cape Town - The ANC on Thursday said President Jacob Zuma could not be held liable for misspending on his Nkandla home, nor made to refund the money, prompting the opposition to threaten to withdraw from the parliamentary committee looking into the controversy.

Opposition parties threw down the gauntlet late on Thursday night after senior ANC MP Mathole Motshekga told the committee the majority of legal minds agreed with the president's view that remedies put forward by the public protector were not binding.

“Our view is that remedial action is not binding, it has the status of recommendations,” he said, adding that the country's courts had not pronounced definitively on the matter.

“Therefore it is for us at the end of this engagement to decide what we do when the balance of evidence points in the other direction,” he added.

This was a clear indication that the ANC majority on the committee would frustrate the opposition's stated aim of making sure that Zuma complies with Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's directive to pay for luxuries added to his home in KwaZulu-Natal at the taxpayer's expense.

Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema said the opposition was ready to take the matter to the Constitutional Court because the law did not allow the legislature to review the public protector's findings.

“If you want to review the public protector's report, we are going to leave the committee and we will see you in court,” he said.

“We are not going to be bullied by an ANC that does anything to protect President Zuma.”

He was backed by Freedom Front Plus MP Corne Mulder, who said he had reluctantly come to agree with the left-wing outfit's parliamentary tactics because the ANC left the opposition no choice.

“You will even put the Constitution on the altar to protect the president. This is a vital matter. It is going to the Constitutional Court.”

At this point, after nine hours of wrangling, the Democratic Alliance asked for the meeting to be resumed in the morning.

DA parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane asked the ANC to reconsider both its view on the status of Madonsela's findings, and its refusal to allow the committee to call witnesses, notably Zuma.

“If you go that route let's put it on record that none of us, none of us in this country will comply with the public protector's findings... We are saying to South Africa ignore the public protector, she is irrelevant.”

Zuma last month wrote to Madonsela that he was not obliged to “rubberstamp” the findings in her report on the security upgrade at Nkandla that cost R246-million and included a swimming pool.

He has instead deferred a decision on whether he was liable to reimburse the state for a portion of the project to the police minister, and ANC MPs on Thursday said this process should be allowed to take its course.

They rejected demands from the opposition that the committee should agree on a list of witnesses to summon, and that Zuma should supplement the submissions he made to Madonsela and to the SIU.

Madonsela has lamented Zuma's failure to answer 18 out of 29 questions she sent him while probing the project, and newspapers have reported that he replied to the SIU's questions under legal duress and in three pages.

“We do not support the point of calling people here,” ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakude said, adding that Zuma did not have the information the opposition accused him of withholding.

“My take would be that he did not have the answers. He did not have time to know everything.

“We cannot say that we are holding the president responsible for something that was done by somebody else.”

Motshekga agreed that the committee should rather seek answers from public works staff implicated by the SIU's report, the department's then minister Geoff Doidge and Zuma's architect Minenhle Makhanya, from whom the SIU is seeking to recover R155-million in overspending at Nkandla.

He added that Zuma was “personally not responsible” for steps taken by directors-general and ministers, “so as matters stand we cannot talk about the president's liability on this score or that”.

But opposition parties argued that this argument was legally flawed, since Madonsela found that Zuma had violated the Executive Ethics Code by failing to act in a manner that protected state resources.

Malema angrily said that Zuma should not only be forced to face the committee, but be arrested and tried for corruption.

“The president must take full responsibility because he willingly took part in this corruption and as a result he must be charged.”

He accused the ANC of systematically undermining state institutions when the president fell foul of them.

“South Africa has been reduced to personal rule,” he said.

“Each time there is an institution that has a problem with President Zuma, we decide that institution must be destroyed in defence of one individual.

“The public protector is what we have left, everything else has been corrupted, the NPA, the Hawks.” 

- Sapa

Growing our way out of climate change by building with hemp and wood fibre

Houses made from hemp could mitigate climate change. Photograph: Roy Morsch/Corbis

From domestic housing to the Science Museum, plant-based construction materials cut reliance on scarce resources and build healthy, efficient and zero carbon buildings

How can buildings help with climate change? It’s all about renewables and “sequestered carbon”.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ 2010 report on Low Carbon Construction concluded that construction was responsible for around 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, which is almost 47% of the UK’s total. Of this, around 50m tonnes is embedded in the fabric of buildings.

Making one tonne of steel emits 1.46 tonnes of CO2 and 198kg of CO2 is emitted make one tonne of reinforced concrete. One square metre of timber framed, hemp-lime wall (weighing 120kg), after allowing for the energy cost of transporting and assembling the materials actually stores 35.5kg of CO2.

If we can convert plants into building materials, we are in a win-win situation. Plants use the energy of the sun to convert atmospheric CO2 and water into hydrocarbons – the material from which plants are made.

The plant acts as a carbon store, sequestering (absorbing) atmospheric CO2 for as long as the plant continues to exist. This CO2 is only re-released when the material is composted or burnt, and the great thing is that through replanting it you can re-absorb this CO2 annually, in the case of straw or hemp, or every decade or so in the case of timber, rather than the 300m years that it takes to recycle coal or oil.

Secondly, plant based materials can be used to make high performing building envelopes, protecting against external weather and making a building more comfortable, healthy and energy efficient to live in.

Not only can they be used as insulation materials, displacing oil-based alternatives such as polyurethane foam, but they also interact with the internal environment in a way that inorganic materials just can’t do.

This is because they are “vapour active”. Insulating materials such as hemp-lime, hemp fibre and wood fibre are capable of absorbing and releasing water vapour. This is doubly effective, because not only can they act as a buffer to humidity (taking moisture out of the air), but they also stabilise a building’s internal temperature much better through latent heat effects (energy consumed and released during evaporation and condensation within the pores of the material).

To build using hemp, the woody core or shiv of the industrial hemp plant is mixed with a specially developed lime-based binder. Factory-constructed panels are pre-dried and when assembled in a timber frame building, the hemp shiv traps air in the walls, providing a strong barrier to heat loss. The hemp itself is porous, meaning the walls are well insulated while the lime-based binder sticks together and protects the hemp, making the building material resistant to fire and decay. The industrial hemp plant takes in carbon dioxide as it grows and the lime render absorbs even more of the climate change gas. Hemp-lime buildings have an extremely low carbon footprint.

Building with hemp lime. Photograph: University of Bath

In this way bio-based materials can be used to construct “zero carbon” buildings, where the materials have absorbed more CO2 than is consumed during construction. By applying PassivHaus principles (the voluntary industry standard for low-carbon design) to bio-based buildings, a building’s energy use once inhabited can also be reduced to minimal levels. This is a true “fabric first” approach, where the fabric of buildings passively manages energy consumption, rather than purely relying on renewables such as solar panels and ground source heating systems, which have a more limited life-span and the potential for failure.

I worked on a project recently for the Science Museum to reduce the high energy cost of archival storage. They needed to have large enclosures kept at a steady humidity and temperature to ensure that items ranging from the first edition of Newton’s Principia through to horse drawn carriages and even Daleks do not deteriorate. Normally this uses energy intensive air conditioning systems.

The three-storey archival store that the Science Museum built in 2012 using a hemp-lime envelope was so effective that they switched off all heating, cooling, and humidity control for over a year, maintaining steadier conditions than in their traditionally equipped stores, reducing emissions while saving a huge amount of energy.

Improved bio-based materials can also passively improve the internal air quality of buildings by interacting with airborne pollutants, removing them from the building. The new HIVE building – a £1m project funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council – has been designed as a platform for research projects into this kind of sustainable construction. The HIVE has a purpose-built flood cell, which will also support research into creating buildings and building materials that are more flood-resilient – a valuable resource in these times of climate change induced adverse weather conditions.

The Hive building. Photograph: University of Bath

Industry and government must also embrace the opportunities presented by bio-based construction materials to reduce emissions. Domestic housing is a key part of this. Good quality housing can be built out of structural timber with a bio-based insulating envelope using straw; hemp-lime, or other systems using wood fibre or other cellulose fibres.

With domestic housing high on the government’s agenda, it is time the construction industry recognised the economic and environmental benefits of bio-based construction materials and became less reliant on depleting resources including oil and steel.

Dr Mike Lawrence is Director of the University of Bath’s new research facility – the Building Research Park – aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of buildings. Follow the facility on twitter @HiveBRP

- The Guardian

Like Adam, Zuma can stroll in his Nkandla Garden of Eden

No home is complete without a nice garden, so it is hard to understand the fuss about the additional R16 million spent on landscaping President Jacob Zuma’s presidential compound, Nkandla.

This is but a fraction of the approximately R250m that the homesteads, rondavels, underground bunker, fire-pool, recreation centre, marital tunnels, helicopter pad, guard posts, cattle kraal and other essentials all cost.

Trees are a necessity, and not only because they exhale oxygen, thus giving the president more breathing space in his off-duty moments.

More importantly, they will hide all the buildings which make people so annoyed when they see photographs of them. The government may well make it a criminal offence to take pictures of Nkandla, on the basis that it is a key point where the many members of the Zuma family hang out, and it probably will be classified “top secret” in due course.

But turning Nkandla into a forest is a far better protection against the prying eyes of taxpayers anxious to see where their money went. In future the only signs of life will be people emerging from the trees or disappearing into them.

Another advantage is that the trees will enable the president to hide from his many enemies, and also provide cover for his security guards, ready to leap out of the boughs, like Robin Hood and his merry men, on to unsuspecting intruders.

One of the reasons the trees cost so much, at R7 500 each, is that they are being transplanted fully-grown. There was no point putting in mere saplings. Zuma is getting on in years and can’t be expected to wait until he’s 95 before he gets a decent bit of shade.

For the same reason, the compound is being carpeted with instant lawn, to ensure no grass grows under his feet.

When all the other landscaping is complete and ornamental lighting installed, the Nkandla forest will resemble a sort of Garden of Eden, where the president can stroll like Adam, in the cool of the evening, with one or all of his wives. 

Who knows, he may even come face to face with God, enabling him to inquire discreetly when Jesus is likely to return to Earth, thus spelling the end of ANC rule.

So long as neither Sizakele MaKhumalo nor Nompumelelo Ntuli nor Thobeka Stacy Mabhija nor Gloria Bongekile Ngema, having been tricked by a snake in the instant grass, persuades him to take a hap out of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Because he will then realise he is naked, and he and the whole bang shoot of Zumas will be ordered to leave Nkandla. He can talk to the trees until he is blue in the face, but (as the song goes) they won’t listen to him. Blaming his architect won’t help, either.

The main thing is not to plant aliens, or the Tree Taliban will be after him, as will God and everyone else.

What he might consider doing is building a treetop walkway, like they have done at Kirstenbosch and which they call the “Boomslang”. It would give him an overview of his kingdom, including the nearby rising town known informally as Zumaville.

It shouldn’t cost more than a few extra million – a mere bagatelle among friends like the water and sanitation minister, who are prepared to defend him tooth and buttock.

johnvscott@mweb.co.za

- IOL Blogs

What Nkandla’s R246m security upgrades could have bought

With the cost for security upgrades running well over R250 million, President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead is easily one of the most expensive homes in the country - but compared to some other properties of similar value, he may have gotten a raw deal.

With the cost of security upgrades alone running well over R250 million, President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead is easily one of the most expensive homes in the country. But compared to some other properties of similar value, he may have gotten a raw deal.

For R250 million (approximately $22.5 million), one could find amazing homes in some of the world’s most beautiful and sought-after regions.

From a villa in Phuket in Thailand to a Rhineland castle in Germany, or even a modest Spanish palace, these are some of the most opulent homes you can buy with same amount spent on the President’s Nkandla security upgrades.

Click here to see what could have been bought for that price... BusinessTech

Presidency mum on Zuma response to SIU report

The presidency will not comment on a report saying that Zuma will only respond to the SIU on Nkandla if served with a legal warning.

The presidency on Monday declined to comment on a press report that, until he was served with a legal warning, President Jacob Zuma failed to respond to Special Investigating Unit (SIU) questions on his Nkandla home.

“That is not a matter we would comment on,” presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj said from New York.

“The issue is that the report is completed and has been given to Parliament. Now the issue is the content, and it becomes one of the reports before the parliamentary ad hoc committee.”

Beeld reported on Monday that Zuma was one of two recalcitrant third parties whose lack of co-operation delayed the SIU’s final report into misspending on his private Nkandla home by some three months.

It said the president finally responded on August 8, and only after he was put on terms by the anti-corruption unit, which was authorised to probe the Nkandla controversy in December last year.

Struggle for co-operation

“The SIU struggled for months to enlist the president’s co-operation in its investigation into the Nkandla project of R246-million,” Beeld reported. “Zuma was the very last official to answer the SIU’s questions.”

According to page 235 of the SIU’s final report: “As we were required to do, we sought responses from the third parties. Not all were prompt with their responses. “In fact, in respect of two of these parties, we had to formally put them on terms. The last response was received only on August 8 2014.”

Still on that page, the SIU adds that “a further major stumbling block to the earlier finalisation of our investigation was the fact that we were allowed access to the Nkandla complex only on July 3 2014.”

Frustration at delays

Both issues were raised by SIU head Vas Soni when he addressed Parliament’s justice portfolio committee in July.

At that briefing, Soni expressed frustration at the delays, as well as concern that it was becoming an embarrassment for the unit.

The final report, which was submitted to Parliament this month, explicitly seeks to counter a perception that the unit deliberately delayed its findings to ease pressure on Zuma to respond to public protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on Nkandla, which was made public in March.

“Such delay, the media suggested, was for an illegitimate purpose: to assist the president to delay his official response to the report of the public protector. We cannot say too strongly: those reports are totally without foundation.”

Stand-off

Madonsela gave Zuma two weeks to respond to her report, but the president said he would only do so when he had also received that of the SIU. He finally submitted a response to the various investigations into Nkandla to Parliament in mid-August, and in it made clear that he was neither commenting on, nor tacitly accepting, Madonsela’s findings.

The president and the public protector have since been locked in a stand-off. Madonsela warned that his response was inadequate, while Zuma has said he did not consider himself obliged to “rubber stamp” her findings.

Opposition parties say the president’s view runs counter to the Constitution.

Maharaj declined to say when Zuma filed his response to the SIU.

The unit found Zuma and his family were enriched by state-funded upgrades to his Nkandla home. But, unlike Madonsela, it did not direct Zuma to reimburse the state for luxuries, such as a swimming pool, built at Nkandla. 

Instead, it is suing the president’s architect, Minenhle Makhanya, for R155-million – its estimate of the state’s total losses as a result of the project spiralling into what it terms “unacceptable extravagance”. – Sapa

Grabouw groups behind service-delivery protest announce plan

A MEETING between municipal representatives and role players behind last week’s protest in Grabouw has led to an agreement, announced on Monday, on the way forward for the Western Cape town.

The Theewaterskloof Municipality (TWK) and Grabouw Civics Organisation (GCO) said in a joint statement on Monday a forum was to be established to serve as a dispute prevention and resolution mechanism.

According to the statement, it was recognised that the chaos last week "left a devastating impact on the reputation of Grabouw, the local economy and the lives of ordinary people".

"The excellent outcome to Friday’s meeting encouraged us to immediately proceed with the establishment of a forum for dispute prevention and dispute resolution," they said.

"Such a forum should have representation of the broader Grabouw community such as the taxi association, the business sector, organised agriculture and the churches."

Grievances listed in the protesters’ memorandum handed to the municipality last week were all listed in an addendum to the statement with reaction to each one. It included proposed action steps as well.

The statement was signed by TWK mayor Chris Punt and GCO chairman John Michels. Mr Michels was one of the main organisers of the protest that eventually spiralled into violence.

More than 50 people representing the municipality, the protesters, police, community organisations and the Grabouw Taxi Association met for more than four hours at the Grabouw police station on Friday.

That was followed by Monday’s meeting at the Grabouw municipal offices in Pineview to agree to the joint statement.

A list of demands was handed to Theewaterskloof municipal officials after two protest marches, the first on August 20, and the second on Monday.

Last week, access to the N2 highway was blocked for three days and there was extensive damage to private and public property. Workers were intimidated and local businesses closed.

Twelve schools in the area were closed in the middle of the preliminary matric exams and more than 5,000 pupils were sent home.

GCO committee member and African National Congress supporter Zwai Bhangazana said he was not satisfied with the outcome of the meetings.

He said the people who protested last week were tired of all the forums being created.

"This is going to be yet another one."

He said what the people wanted to see was action at the grass-roots level.

"We want to see the roads repaired, the electricity supplied and the houses being built," Mr Bhangazana said.

He was the last person to address a crowd of more than 1,000 protesters on Thursday last week before they dispersed.

He played an important role in restoring calm and was also one of the most vocal and angry representatives at the meeting on Friday.

GCO secretary Margaret le Roux said she was satisfied with the outcome.

"At least there will now be opportunities where we can make the municipality listen to us," she said.

However, she said there was a second memorandum that had not yet been answered.

"Our people will not be satisfied until all those grievances are also addressed and they see the necessary results."

The GCO organised a rally to be held at Pineview Park Sport Field on Monday night.

"We want to give our supporters and the community feedback," Ms le Roux said.

Church and other community leaders, union representatives and school principals were invited.

- Sapa

Jacob Zuma still 'not safe' in Nkandla compound

The Special Investigating Unit report on Nkandla recommends that the police evaluate its security situation — and soon.

Fifteen years, well over R200-million and several investigations later, Nkandla is still not secure. President Jacob Zuma’s palatial homestead in rural KwaZulu-Natal is ringed by two fences, has bulletproof glass and a last-resort underground bunker. 

But even as state expenditure at the compound creeps towards a quarter of a billion rand, and even though efforts to secure it now have a history a decade-and-a-half long, Zuma and his family may still not be entirely safe.

Or, at least, they were probably not yet sufficiently safe as of July this year. In August the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) presented its report on Nkandla to Zuma; that report is now before Parliament and the public as a result. 

Buried near the end of the 245-page document is an intentionally cryptic warning based on a visit the unit made to Nkandla in July, after eventually gaining access.

During that visit, the SIU said, “the investigating team noted a number of matters of concern relating to the upgrades that have been effected”. For reasons of security, it said, the details were excluded from the report, but require urgent attention. Measuring the security features against initial threat assessments, the unit said, “a further evaluation of the security situation [by the SA Police Service] should be undertaken as soon as possible”.

The warning was issued even though the SIU said it did not have full and unfettered access to the compound during its one visit and had trouble verifying what had actually been constructed.

Fifth review

If the recommendation for a new review is followed it would be the fifth time since 1999 (when Zuma became deputy president) that the police give formal consideration to security at Nkandla. As deputy to Thabo Mbeki there was apparently little real concern about Zuma’s safety at Nkandla; a 2007 review by the police found that recommendations made in 2004 had seen little done beyond providing fire extinguishers and an intruder alarm.

In 2009, with Zuma installed as president, that changed dramatically. Paralleling the findings of the public protector, the SIU documented a host of government officials who suddenly, and with no clear explanation even under oath, started breaking rules with wild abandon or just made up rules on the spot in order to ram through improvements of “indefensible extravagance”.

The SIU had been tasked with investigating procurement processes, but went much further.

As it explained in its report to Zuma, the law requires it to act to the benefit of the state rather than just stick to the terms of reference it is given by the president — and it considered itself obliged to figure out why so many officials acted in so strange a manner. That took it all the way to the top, and to probe persistent allegations that bureaucrats were told they needed to meet Zuma’s expectations.

Having been so implicated, the SIU sent Zuma a list of 15 detailed questions, including whether he had signed off on landscaping or had been consulted on the colour of a fence. Zuma, the SIU said, responded with a three-page letter, denying he had any undue influence or had expressed any firm views. 

Criminal dockets

That was the end of that particular road for the SIU, which has no authority to cross-examine those in its cross-hairs — but not necessarily the end for the allegations themselves. The unit prepared criminal dockets on three former acting directors general of the department of public works and “disciplinary dockets” on 12 current department employees. Prosecuting those, the SIU said, may unearth the truth.

“In the absence of cross-examination in which the different versions can be tested, we are unable to accept or reject any of the versions [including Zuma’s],” the SIU said. “However, if the disciplinary inquiries or criminal trials are properly prosecuted, the different role players will be subjected to cross-examination and a determination will be made on whose version to accept.”

The courts, if the matter ever reaches them, could well find the job of determining the truth to be complex. One government official explained to the SIU that what may have been interpreted as orders from above had, in fact, been “requests” rather than “instructions”, but that requests from superiors had to be complied with by reason of their origin.

Claim of unjust enrichment could succeed against president

The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) said it could, technically, claim back money wasted on Nkandla from a number of parties — including President Jacob Zuma and his family.

The unit said the claims it has instituted make it obvious “that the value of the president’s, or the Zuma family’s, residential complex was enhanced”. 

On that basis, a claim of unjust enrichment could succeed against Zuma, as it could against the contractors who built Nkandla.

The SIU believes the most legally sound recovery strategy is to target just one person for all of the wasted money: Zuma’s architect Minenhle Makhanya. 

Hence its civil claim against Makhanya for R155-million, currently under way in the high court in Pietermaritzburg.

But its report leaves the door open for Makhanya to draw Zuma into the court case and also provides a basis for calculating the amount Zuma can hypothetically be held responsible for.

Although public protector Thuli Madonsela held that Zuma should pay a “reasonable percentage” of the Nkandla costs, she declined to calculate the actual amount. 

Zuma has made Police Minister Nathi Nhleko responsible for calculating the actual amount, if any. The SIU provides an accounting of “security” features the state paid for that benefit only Zuma and his family, and that the state had no business paying for. 

These exclude over-designed but genuine security features and the swimming pool, the cattle kraal, and other elements that benefit the Zuma family.

The total Zuma could, hypothetically, be held responsible for is R14.8-million.

• Although security improvements required only a perimeter road for patrolling, the state built six roads inside the compound. “It needs to be accepted that four of these were necessitated by the security upgrades,” the SIU said. “The other two roads are for the sole use of the private residents.” Cost: R3.6-million
• Police wanted an air-conditioned emergency bunker, but contractors ended up installing air conditioning in three private houses. Cost: R4-million
• Some of the security works required subsequent landscaping and rehabilitation of the grounds, but actual landscaping went far beyond that; some 44% of the work done benefited only the Zuma family. Cost: R3.3-million
• A visitors’ lounge built on the grounds was never requested as a security feature, and seems to serve no such purpose. Cost: R3.9-million

- M&G