MPs’ Nkandla report asks much of us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- BDLive

Nkandla report passes after riotous debate

Cape Town - The ANC on Thursday drove its report absolving President Jacob Zuma from responsibility for the abuse of funds on his Nkandla home through the National Assembly, after an opposition filibuster that brought pandemonium to Parliament over the security upgrade saga for a second time.

Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane said the opposition was united in its rejection of the report, which leaves it to Cabinet to rule whether refurbishments at Nkandla were legitimate security measures and to Zuma to decide who should be held responsible for excesses.

"Our president has forsaken his constitutional duty and the ANC report has rubber-stamped his sins," he charged.

"Today the opposition stands together, united in our rejection of the report and its collection of denials, half-truths and fallacies."

Maimane said the ANC was shielding a shamed Zuma from account but unless he heeded the public protector's directive to reimburse the state for luxuries added to his homestead "we will be left with no choice but to move for his removal from office".

AgangSA's Andries Tlouamma said Zuma should step down because his presidency was "a disgrace to our country".

"Are the ANC telling us that former President [Thabo] Mbeki was worse than this? I want to say to the president I hope he will do us a favour and resign with immediate effect."

Tempers flared across the floor, as veteran ANC MP Mathole Motshekga, who was pivotal in the ad hoc committee that drafted the report, said the opposition was exaggerating the public protector's findings against Zuma and called Maimane "the liar of the century".

He was forced to withdraw the insult, but went on: "There was no evidence in any of the reports that there was any undue influence on the part of the president. On what basis does one link the escalation of the costs with the president? There is no basis to link anything with the president."

It drew howls of protest from opposition parties who earlier shouted down Speaker Baleka Mbete when she tried to prevent them from bringing dozens of motions that delayed the debate by four hours.

In an echo of the Economic Freedom Fighters' heckling of Zuma in late August, Maimane and fellow MPs shouted "reverse your decision" and "she must go" at the speaker.

Mbete relents

She relented after a quarter of an hour, accepting their argument that motions were not unscheduled as she claimed because they had warned her earlier in the day.

The opposition proceeded to call for future debates ranging from the cost of ministerial flights to Morocco's refusal to host the Cup of Nations, but mostly the motions scathingly targeted Zuma's handling of Nkandla and his refusal to face Parliament on the issue.

EFF MP Godrich Gardee gleefully warned he had 50 motions to move, then began: "I move that this House congratulates President Zuma on being exonerated on Nkandla."

The debate on the report was finally introduced by the chairperson of the ad hoc committee, Cedric Frolick, who defended its rejection of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's finding that Zuma was unduly enriched by features such as a swimming pool because they did not relate to his safety.

"At this stage it would be premature for the committee to come to the conclusion that the president was enriched," he said.

Frolick insisted that only Cabinet could make a finding on this since presidential security requirements were determined by a Cabinet memorandum, adding that it was beyond the public protector's powers.

The report gives Cabinet three months to revert to Parliament with a finding, the same timeframe it gives the executive to move against officials.

Without naming him, Frolick fingered former minister Geoff Doidge, saying various investigations into the upgrade had found that "especially the former minister and deputy minister of public works did not act according to the prescripts of the PMFA [Public Finance Management Act]".

'It is legal because I wish it'

The ANC on Thursday drove its report absolving President Jacob Zuma from responsibility for the abuse of funds on his Nkandla home through the National Assembly, after an opposition filibuster that brought pandemonium to Parliament over the security upgrade saga for a second time.

DA MP James Selfe said it was ridiculous to confine blame to these officials as Zuma must have been aware of the extent of construction at his private home in rural KwaZulu-Natal.

"He was unhappy about the bullet proof glass, so much so that poor Geoff Doidge had to go off to the factory. He must have been deaf and blind not to see what was going on."

The Inkatha Freedom Party's Narend Singh predicted that the president would face embarrassment as "new facts are likely to emerge from the court case" seeking to reclaim funds from his architect Minenhle Makhanya, and disciplinary hearings against officials.

Pieter Mulder of the Freedom Front Plus said Zuma's stance on Nkandla could be summed up in a phrase attributed to French King Louis XIV: "'It is legal because I wish it'."

"That is what happened at Nkandla."

As the debate drew to a close, Deputy Speaker Lechesa Tsenoli lost control of the chamber as the EFF banged on their desks and chanted "he must pay back the money".

Next, Maimane referred to Zuma as corrupt and Gardee added:"Money was stolen here. The president is telling the nation that there was no money stolen, that he did not benefit. The president is lying, unless he wants to say he is a thief. He must pay back the money.

An exasperated Tsenoli pleaded: "Can you behave? Just for change, behave."

Maimane tabled an alternative report on behalf of the opposition which asks that Zuma be removed from office and made to repay a reasonable portion of the costs of Nkandla.

In his declaration, United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa challenged Zuma to challenge Madonsela's report on Nkandla in court, saying it was the only legal route to overturning it.

The opposition report was rejected, and the committee's report accepted with 210 against 130 votes. There were no abstentions.

- SAPA

Opposition parties filibuster Nkandla report

Cape Town - Opposition parties on Thursday delayed Parliament's adoption of a report exonerating President Jacob Zuma in the Nkandla saga with a noisy filibuster which dragged on for hours.

The Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters shouted down an attempt by Speaker Baleka Mbete to ban MPs from bringing motions, before rising to call for debates on anything from the presidential swimming pool at Nkandla to Morocco's refusal to host the Cup of Nations.

"She must go," the DA's chief whip John Steenhuisen and DA's Parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane chanted.

Baleka tried to remain calm amid the outcry, telling MPs: "I'm amazed by your excitement, I just don't understand it," and later, as several clamoured at once to speak: "I don't want to recognise anybody."

She insisted that she would not allow unscheduled items, and therefore motions.

Maimane demanded: "Reverse your ruling," and ignored her when she told him to sit down, as his colleague Mike Waters did when she ordered him out of the Chamber.

Steenhuisen reminded the Speaker that the opposition had given warning of its plans in the scheduling committee earlier on Thursday, and said she could therefore not claim the motions were unforeseen.

Steenhuisen told her: "I would ask with respect that you surrender your chair to the honourable [House chairperson Cedric] Frolick. You have lost control of the House for the second time," he said, referring to 21 August, when she called security after the EFF heckled Zuma about Nkandla.

'Abusing your powers'

"You have pushed us to the brink of a constitutional crisis. You are abusing your powers. I only hope that you are doing this because [African National Congress secretary general] Gwede [Mantashe] told you to."

After almost an hour of debate, Mbete relented and MPs began reading their motions from white pages they waved in the air.

Many targeted Zuma, mentioning luxuries included in the security upgrade of Nkandla, other controversies embroiling the president and perceived failures of his administration.

DA MP James Selfe moved that "this House debates the cost of defending President Jacob Zuma in the spy tapes saga".

The Inkatha Freedom Party's Narend Singh called for an investigation into the corporate disarray at South African Airways, asking "are there other forces at play" in a plain reference to news reports of a relationship between Zuma and chairperson Dudu Myeni.

Waters moved for a debate on why Zuma's diary was "too full" to allow him to spend adequate time answering questions in Parliament.

And fellow DA member Dianne Kohler Barnard called for a debate on the "unwillingness of the ANC" to discipline party members who undermined the authority of the Public Protector.

Campaign to drive Zuma from office

This was another reference to the Nkandla saga, in which the president and the parliamentary ad hoc committee that weighed the outcome of investigations in to the project have rejected Thuli Madonsela's findings.

The committee's final report, which was due to be debated on Thursday, sought to overturn her finding that Zuma was enriched by the R246m refurbishment of his rural home and should repay a portion of the cost to the state.

Seven opposition parties on Wednesday rejected the report as a whitewash.

They vowed to go to court to force Zuma to reimburse the state and said they would step up a campaign to drive him from office.

The filibuster meant to stymie the almost certain adoption of the report by the ANC majority lasted some four hours, and saw tempers flare.

At one point the EFF's Godrich Gardee rose and teased: "I've got about 50 motions. Can I move them all or should I come back?"

Deputy Speaker Lechesa Tsenoli, who had by then replaced Mbete, said he could not. Shortly afterwards, he snapped when Steenhuisen called Juli Killian, who defected from the opposition to the ANC, a "turncoat".

"Who the hell do you think you are talking to when you use a term like that?" Tsenoli asked, before apologising and withdrawing the remark.

When Gardee got another turn, he proposed: "I move that this House congratulates President Zuma on being exonerated on Nkandla."

Several ANC MPs mocked the opposition strategy as desperate, and small business development Minister Lindiwe Zulu nearly came to blows with EFF members outside the Chamber.

A police source later told Sapa that parliamentary officials had ordered that officers be placed outside the various entrances to the Chamber. About 15 were deployed there.

- SAPA

Draft report ‘absolves Zuma on Nkandla’

Cape Town - A draft report by the parliamentary committee on the Nkandla controversy has absolved President Jacob Zuma and concluded that Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's findings against him on misspending on his private home were not binding.

“The remedial action of the public protector is not binding,” states the document, discussed by the ANC-only committee on Thursday.

The report also states that contrary to arguments by the political opposition, it was not necessary to call Zuma to answer questions on the so-called security upgrade at his home that spiralled to a cost of R246-million and has haunted him since he took office.

“There was not a need to call persons mentioned as the investigations extensively and exhaustively extracted information from political office-bearers,” it continued.

The draft report accepts damning findings by Madonsela, the Special Investigating Unit and an inter-ministerial team that the project flouted regulations, but lays no blame on Zuma.

It states firmly that “the president did not request the upgrade” at his Nkandla homestead and that the minister of safety and security approved neither the cost nor the design of the project.

This meant, it adds, “that the project was initiated and implemented without the necessary authority and the expenditure could be deemed unauthorised as per the Public Finance Management Act”.

ANC MPs suggested additions to the document - compiled by parliamentary content advisors - that would unambiguously exonerate Zuma and recommend steps against officials who flouted the law.

Mmamaloko Kubayi suggested that the report should include a clear pronouncement that Zuma did not contravene the Executive Ethics Code, since neither the SIU nor the inter-ministerial committee found that he had.

Madonsela, in her report released in March, found that Zuma had in fact contravened the code and had unduly benefited from improvements to his homestead.

Veteran ANC MP Mathole Motshekga contradicted this directly, saying he believed it would be “premature to come to a conclusion that there was undue benefit”.

He went on to ask that the point be made in the report that Zuma had not acted improperly by introducing his personal architect Minenhle Makanya to state officials, and that they had elected to appoint the project leader and failed to follow proper procedure to do so.

“I find that there was gross negligence on the part of the officials,” he added.

Kubayi added that the report should oblige government report back to Parliament on the steps it had taken against officials to prevent future abuses and a perception that the state wasted taxpayers' money.

The drafters are due to next present a final report to the committee from which opposition parties withdrew in protest last month over the ANC's attitude towards Madonsela's report on Nkandla.

They argued that her directive that Zuma repay a portion of the funds spent on his home could only be reviewed by a court of law, and that therefore the ANC and the president's rejection of it was unconstitutional.

But on Thursday, ANC MPs said the ruling party's view had been vindicated by the Western Cape High Court's ruling in the Hlaudi Motsoeneng case last week.

The court correctly held that reports by the public protector were not binding, and therefore put paid to the opposition's campaign calling on Zuma to “pay back the money” - in the catch phrase of the Economic Freedom Fighters, said Motshekga.

“That court has actively come to our assistance by finding that the remedial action of the public protector is not binding and enforceable,” he said.

Motshekga added that this meant that Madonsela's letters to Zuma in recent months, imploring him to respond adequately to her findings, had been misguided.

“The letters of the public protector to the president demanding compliance were informed by her wrong interpretation of the Constitution and the (Public Protector's) Act.”

He said since interpretation had informed the opposition's demands that Zuma reimburse the state, the “pay-back campaign has therefore collapsed”.

Pre-empting claims that the committee lacked legitimacy because it consisted only of ruling party members, Motshekga said these would be “outrageous” and called on the opposition to return to it.

“I hope they will come back and help us understand the basis on which they withdrew.”

The Democratic Alliance, the party that went to court in a bid to enforce Madonsela's findings against the SABC on Motsoeneng's appointment as chief operating officer, has claimed that the same court ruling in fact vindicated its views on the status of her reports.

The DA pointed to the court's qualifying remark that state bodies could only deviate from the remedial action implemented by the public protector if they declared rational grounds, that would stand up in a court, for not doing so.

On Thursday, Kubayi said the committee's thorough reflection on the findings of all three investigations into the Nkandla allegations meant it had rationally applied its mind to the matter. 

- Sapa

State to decide who can hear Nkandla inquiry

Durban - Media companies face being barred from the government inquiry on the conduct of Department of Public Works officials involved in the upgrading of security at President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence.

The media were allowed to report on all the preliminary hearings, but were told on Wednesday to submit a formal application before November 5 to be allowed any further access.

A “media hearing” will be held next week, where attorneys representing the media will have to present their arguments before the three chairmen, the state’s attorneys, the accused and their representative, the Public Servants Association.

The media application must include details of how the stories will be used, including whether articles will be shared with sister publications, plans for publishing online and on social media platforms.

Murray Hunter, a spokesman for the media freedom organisation Right2Know, said: “In the battle to get the Nkandla procurement documents released, top Public Works officials lied under oath about the contents of the documents. They claimed that the contents were so critical to national security that not even one page could be released, which turned out not to be true. So the department’s conduct has eroded public trust.

“Making this process open would be the best way to ensure that the civil servants get a fair hearing – it would also be crucial to ensuring that the public finally got to know the truth.” The inquiry is taking place in Durban, where 12 officials have to answer to charges of failing to comply with the statutory and regulatory measures that governed the procurement of goods and services by the department for the R246 million project.

Earlier this month, one of the chairmen, Thulani Khuzwayo, announced that the media would have to make a formal application to report on the hearings. This is believed to be on the instruction of the department.

Advocate Joseph Nxusana initially permitted the media to report on the inquiry when he presided over the first sitting on September 30. This was in spite of argument by the department’s attorney, Lynette Naidoo, that the identities of the state’s witnesses would be compromised by the media’s presence. She also said the inquiry was by the department, that it concerned the conduct of its own employees, and media should not be present at internal hearings.

The Public Servants Association’s labour relations officer, Roshan Lil-Ruthan, has on many occasions stated that the association’s members have no objections to the media covering the hearings.

In September, he said if the hearings were like that of any other internal inquiry, the State would not have hired external attorneys as prosecutors and the proceedings would have been chaired by senior employees of the department instead of advocates from the KZN Society of Advocates, as was the case.’

- The Mercury

DA Calls On Minister Sisulu to Come Clean On Tongaat Mall Funding

The DA will today write to the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, Nocawe Mafu, requesting that she summon the Minister of Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu, to Parliament to account for the department's involvement in partially funding the Tongaat Mall in Durban.

Reports revealed yesterday that Minister Sisulu confirmed that her department had been involved in the funding of this mall and thus we implore the Minister to come clean on the extent of her department's involvement.

Minister Sisulu said: "The tragedy about that building is that it was partly funded by myself [... ] Part of the funding did come from human settlements."

The DA will submit parliamentary questions to ascertain how funds from the Department of Human Settlements were channelled and approved by the Minister to fund the construction of the mall.

Housing money should not be spent on building malls.

After the investigation is complete, the full might of the law must be enforced to hold those accountable for abusing tax payer's money.

Sadly, two people were killed and 29 workers were injured in the collapse of the mall on 19 November last year.

We cannot stand by and watch money that is meant to assist the poor to be used on building malls.

Taking money meant to build houses for the poor to build malls is criminal and as such all involved must face the full might of the law. It does not matter if they are developers, politicians or Human Settlements officials

Makashule Gana

Deputy Federal Chairperson of the Democratic Alliance | Shadow Minister of Human Settlements

- allAfrica

Human Settlements Minister lives in the future and forgets her involvement in the past - not learning from history

Housing: Why did Germany succeed where we've failed? - Lindiwe Sisulu

Minister notes that that country rebuilt the 6m houses destroyed in WWII in less than a decade

ADDRESS BY L N SISULU, MP, MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, AT THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS INDABA

16 OCTOBER 2014, SANDTON CONVENTION CENTRE

We have been here before with some of you in 2005. Those of us in government look at that period as the dawn of new thinking around housing development, at a time when we examined our own policies, their relevance and quickly caught on to world trends and adopted the groundbreaking approach of Integrated Human Settlements. What did come as a complete surprise to us at that Summit of 2005, was the level of support we received from the sectors we have here assembled today.

It went way beyond the economic rationale we had taken advantage of. We, as government, had set ourselves an ambitious target and allowed ourselves to dream that the best was possible for us. Essentially, we knew that there was no way we could make it alone. And so we called a summit such as this one, in which we could bind ourselves, the private sector and our partners to test the new policy and to achieve the goal we had set ourselves. It was a golden age of hope of new ways and enhanced delivery support.

We had realised then that unless we had a total mobilisation of the Banking Sector, the Private Sector, the NGOs and other stakeholders, we would not achieve what we had set ourselves to achieve. We successfully mobilised the stakeholders that helped us deliver 6 successful mega projects that helped us refine our policies and helped us exceed our own goals.

We used our collective muscle to test our new approach and our successes will speak for themselves later in our deliberations. I was excessively proud of our joint efforts. I had the opportunity at the recent budget vote debate to express my sincerest appreciation to the MECs who trod this path with me and now I would like to extend my gratitude to all those who cooperated with us to achieve what will always be a cameo in the history of human settlements in this country. For every major project we undertook there was a bank ready to provide support, not only financial support, but the banks, in fact, geared themselves to establish the necessary structures to have joint implementation capacity. Either out of naivety or carried away by our own enthusiasm, we managed to get the heads of all the banks in one room. Too late we realised we might have fallen foul of the Treasury rules in this collaboration - too late: the deed was done! Our profound appreciation to the Banking Sector. And a special appreciation to Cas Coovadia and the Banking Association of South Africa, whose belief in us allowed them to exceed the R42bn they had originally earmarked for us. May they continue to believe in us.

To the developers who had faith in us and our vision, we appreciate your support for our work. When it was not profitable to work in the human settlements environment we saw an exodus of the main construction companies - they mostly found their way to Dubai. But those who stayed with us can rightly be proud that together we created more than 1.2 million housing units in five years. Well beyond our target. Translating into 240 000 units a year, 20 000 units a month and 660 units a day. The challenge now is to out-do that and do it without having the many glitches we experienced then.

The Slum Dwellers International exposed us to new thinking, taught us that people are prouder of their achievements when they feel they have contributed to providing shelter for their families. They made us proud, so proud that they were nominees of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014, because we bask in that glory too.

UN Habitat gave us the platform and used us to lobby for the prioritisation of human settlement on the world agenda. UN Habitat, you could not have chosen more committed partners for this. We are grateful for the exposure and the ability to stand here and claim we helped shape Human Settlements Policies for developing countries. And our woman contractors, what can I say? I just wish they were more organized because they are simply the best, better than anyone. Women of South Africa in the construction industry, I urge you to organise yourselves and take full advantage of the quota that has been allocated to you. You have nothing to lose but the men who use you to front for them.

The Chamber of Mines, it is with extreme regret that we were not able to accomplish what we had hoped we could do, for we were all certain in 2005 that we could change the lives of our workers on the mines. We were determined we would do it before tragedy struck. Perhaps we should have known even then that we needed the workers themselves to be part of the Social Contract. We learn and grow every day in government. Now we know. But we know now and we have invited them too this time, so that we can work with them to better their living conditions.

The Black Conveyances, we will make better use of this opportunity. Property is not an asset without a title deed and most of our beneficiaries have not realised the full potential of what we have given them, because its value is so limited to shelter. We are behind in the issuing of title deeds, for various reasons, while our people are experiencing economic difficulty. Together we need to recommit to measurable outputs so that we revive the dead assets in the property we have given them, revitalise the secondary market and unleash the economic potential of our townships.

We are here today to recommit ourselves and mobilise even greater participation. Not because it makes business sense to do so, but because we are driven by our patriotic responsibility and because we are all aware that the restoration of the dignity of our people begins with shelter. And that which defines us as a human species is our social interaction and therefore need for communities. Our people are in appalling conditions as we sit in air-conditioned summits. In just this year, KwaZulu-Natal has had eight protests over housing.

To those of you who are new to this summit, you are most welcome. We meet here to ask you to come along with us and help us meet the challenge of housing, the challenge of reversing the deeply entrenched racial spatial patterns of apartheid. We are battling as South Africa continues to rank number one in the world as the country with the sharpest inequalities. These manifest themselves along racial lines, along residential patterns. We are further challenged by a number of impediments of our own making. An unresponsive slow bureaucracy, the increasing number of people in our backlog against the huge drop in delivery of more than 1.5 million people over the last five years.

We have resolved that to regain our delivery pace our target for this next five years is 1.5 million housing units, fifty catalytic projects, 200 000 Housing units in the mining towns over the next three years. We intend to continue to appeal to all employers to join us in our work. The living conditions of their employees are as much their responsibility as it is ours to assist. We have created a policy for a Government Employees Housing Scheme, which will give guarantees to the bank, so that they are not over exposed. They will, with the concurrence of labour be assured that the mortgage deductions can come directly from the pay role. We do this as government because we want to show that it is possible to do it and urge all employers to consider the same.

With all that we have been through as a country, where a house was used as part of a coercive system to subjugate the masse of our people, we can use that same instrument to provide settled communities, responsive to their obligations as citizens, give them a stake in the economy and I can assure you we will change lives, create a better country and a responsible citizenry. Together we can improve the economy of the country, create more jobs and thrive as we should, given the amount of goodwill we as a people are gifted with.

Our emphasis for the next five years is mega projects, while allowing for pockets of site and service and People's Housing Projects. Mega Projects have the advantage of building on scale and generating jobs and subsidiary industries. They allow all three spheres of government to learn to work together and hopefully the "foot dragging" of municipal processes can be brought under central control of all three spheres working together. It cuts down on time spent. Together we can plan and ensure proper integration and spatial coherence.

National Government will provide a centralised database for beneficiaries.

We would like all of you here to join us on this monumental chance to make a significant impact. It is rare that any of us are given a second chance. We have been given that second chance and we intend to ensure its impact.

For our part as government, this is what we are committing to in this partnership:

1. We commit to the struggling contractor, we will help you access funding. We will be restructuring our Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) to make them more responsive and to help them access the necessary finance so that you may be assisted.

2. We will help to the extent possible to access land for low income housing and ensure you get all the help you can get through our bureaucratic maze, with the assistance of the Housing Development Agency, who will work with you through the Provinces and municipalities.

3. We will establish a dedicated unit in the department, headed by a DDG, to ensure that you are paid on time. We have seen many frustrated contractors going under because of the burden of delay in payment. That should be behind us now.

4. Over and above that, we will establish an office of an ombudsman so that you have easy recourse to redress as and when you should require that.

5. We will create fora where you can participate together with other stakeholders like Water and Sanitation, Eskom, the roads agencies, the education and sport and recreation sectors, the Estate Agency Affairs Board, the municipalities and the communities so that we do not cause you the financial risks you have had to take where you spend years before the project is allocated. These fora will be convened by the MECs of the Provinces and we expect no less than four a year.

6. Human Settlements has a potential as a great job creator. We intend to harness the energy of our unemployed youth. We would like to test the Cuban model of a Youth Brigade for every project so that we can deal with unemployment while we skill the youth.

7. We have a Master Spatial Plan which will help you understand the direction we are going, where our future projects will be. This will be used to ensure that by the time we have the approved projects, the necessary bulk infrastructure, electricity, etc has been put in place.

From all of you we ask, seek better and more cost effective ways of building. Our exhibitors out there are here to show you what is possible. New methods are available and once approved, try them. From you we want an increase in the number of affordable rental stock. This is one of our most serious challenges. Not every homeless person qualifies for a free house and no stock is available for the rental bracket.

From you we want solidly built houses. From the Banking sector we need a recommitment to create access to mortgage funding. The Black Conveyancers must help our municipalities to access title deeds at shortest time possible so that in future it should be possible to give a title deed as we give the house. Our Military Veterans, come help us build houses for people who have done so much for us. SDI, we have to upscale our numbers. The more you succeed the better are our chances of stopping an unhealthy decency syndrome that has set in

It took Germany less than ten years to rebuild the houses that were destroyed in the 2nd World War. By the end they had built 6 million houses. How did they do it? They prioritised housing in their reconstruction. They received a dedicated fund for this and created a special purpose vehicle and by the early 1950s they had completed this task. We have had twenty years. We have prioritized housing. We have special purpose vehicles. We have dedicated funding. But we have a backlog that is almost as large as the number of units built so far. We need to do something drastically different. We are open to ideas that would make this possible.

The revised growth down from the last assessment means that we have to brace ourselves for even more stringent cost cutting measures from Treasury. We can do our bit in getting out of this economic gloom. We jointly have the capacity to grow jobs and skills.

We, each if us here, have a significant role to play. Join this Human Settlements family and we can beat our own target, create new cities that reflect our new identity, break down racial barriers. And give expression to our freedom. Let's make an indelible mark in our history because we have the opportunity to do so.

I thank you.

Issued by the Ministry of Human Settlements, October 16 2016

13 OFFICIALS ORDERED TO DESTROY NKANDLA RECORDS - REPORTS

Reports say 13 officials were ordered to make no personal notes or audio recordings of Nkandla meetings.

A total of 13 public works officials have reportedly been ordered by high ranking government officials, including ministers, to destroy any records of secret meetings on upgrades to President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead.

In March, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, released her Nkandla report and found that Zuma and his family unduly benefited from the R246 million upgrades to his KwaZulu-Natal home.

Madonsela also recommended that he pay back a portion of the money used in the Nkandla upgrades.

The City Press is reporting that the officials plan to expose instructions from their superiors to bypass tender procedures and take shortcuts from 2009 when construction on the homestead begun.

The newspaper says the officials were ordered to make no personal notes or audio recordings of the meetings.

The City Press reports that the 13 officials will demand that travel documents and itinerates of the ministers and officials be produced to prove they attended secret meetings on Nkandla construction.

The officials have apparently been set up to take the blame for the inflated prices but will fight back and expose direct orders linked to the president.

One of their allegations is that Zuma personally instructed the department to appoint the architect who has subsequently been asked to pay back more than R150 million.

Disciplinary hearings held by public works are expected to hear evidence from December until March next year.

 An aerial view of Nkandla taken in August 2013 which was taken by an aerial mapping company using a hi-tech, high-altitude mapping aircraft.

A 2010 aerial view of Nkandla taken off Google Earth.

Yesterday opposition parties issued a stern warning to the African National Congress (ANC) and to the president.

They said Zuma must be held accountable for the multi-million rand upgrades to his Nkandla residence.

Opposition Members of Parliament have promised to table their own report on the scandal before the end of this month as they believe the Nkandla ad-hoc committee is illegitimate.

The parties withdrew from the Parliamentary committee last week.

They wrangled over whether witnesses could be called to testify and whether the public protector's report on the upgrades should be enforced.

The parties also accused the ANC of destroying everything late former president Nelson Mandela stood for.

- EWN

ANC: Zuma won’t pay the money

Cape Town - The ANC has given the clearest indication yet that President Jacob Zuma will not be asked to pay back any money for the Nkandla upgrades, dismissing the notion that Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s findings are binding as “absurd”.

The party said all reports on the upgrades must be treated equally.

It also took a swipe at opposition parties for their “despicable” conduct when they staged a walkout.

The party said it was not bothered by the opposition walkout because it was in the majority and not in a “government of national unity”.

Addressing the meeting in siSwati, ANC deputy chief whip Doris Dlakude said “the money they say was used irregularly was not used by the president”.

“The president didn’t build his house with state funds. The public protector says clearly that the president didn’t mislead Parliament and that he and his family built their own houses. All reports agree with that,” said Dlakude.

She said this was not the first time a president’s private home had been upgraded.

“It happened to previous presidents. The president didn’t steal taxpayers’ money in building his house. It was people who didn’t do their work, the accounting officers,” said Dlakude.

She also placed the blame on officials and on former public works minister Geoff Doidge without mentioning him by name.

Commenting on the opposition walkout, Dlakude told The Mercury the ANC members were “very comfortable” deliberating on the matter alone.

“As the ANC we are a majority. We won the elections. So we are not in a government of national unity,” said Dlakude.

Mmamoloko Kubayi (ANC) said the reports on Nkandla were common in that they all stated that Zuma had not asked for the upgrades.

“What is also common in the reports… is that the president had not requested all this. The second thing is that the president did not steal state money as per the reports,” said Kubayi.

ANC MP Mathole Motshekga said one should be “upfront” and say “the president has not violated any code of conduct because the report itself hasn’t said so”.

“The (public protector) finding says the conduct of president may have been unethical. Now what is the meaning of that?” said Motshekga.

At the beginning of the meeting Motshekga said there was a matter that had to be laid to rest.

“This is a matter that was discussed at great length raised by the honourable (DA leader Mmusi) Maimane who maintained that the public protector’s report contains remedial actions that must be followed because they are not merely recommendations.

“I want to indicate that those that saw Judge for Yourself (on eNCA) will have heard (Thuli Madonsela) herself concede that her findings were not binding, they were recommendations.”

Chapter nine institutions “cannot have overriding powers over all three arms of the state that are mandated to strengthen and support” democracy.

“Such a situation would be absurd. I do not believe the intention of the constitution and the Public Protector Act is to create a serial relationship between the public protector on one side and the executive and Parliament on the other side. I do not believe the constitution and the Public Protector Act envisaged such absurdity,” he said.

EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said the committee was no longer parliamentary “but a mere study group of the ANC”.

“This is because there is no sanity in insisting that this committee is of a democratic institution of a Parliament that defines itself as a multiparty system,” said Ndlozi.

Maimane said that with only the ANC members sitting, the committee was nothing more than a means to “whitewash the accountability of President Jacob Zuma”.

The committee would reconvene on October 9.

- Political Bureau

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

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