Nkandla skulduggery goes beyond Madonsela's report: iLIVE

03 April 2014 - 14:06 By Anonymous
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla residence in KwaZulu-Natal. File photo.
President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla residence in KwaZulu-Natal. File photo.
Image: File photo.

The more I read about the Public Protector report – the more I think the skulduggery went beyond what was in that report.

I was involved in Government structures  for many years and know how money could be looted in such instances.  Let us look at the background in the first instance:-

- Zuma appointed the Consulting Architect

- Zuma appointed the Contractors

- Both are later accepted as being contracted by the Government

Now how can the system work in such instances.    The Contractor does work on the security aspects, as well as work on the Zuma residence.  

The Contractor consequently submits  an account for the full work done – both private and official  - to the Consulting architect.  

In the process the contractor can claim all work done that month as official costs by inflating the Government costs and allocating zero costs or minimal costs to the private component.  

The Architect certifies the account and the monthly account is paid in full by the Government.

Another issue that bothers me is that  from the aerial photograph there were massive work done on the Zuma residence – probably most costs were incurred on that component – but the question really is, how can Zuma fund this type of work. 

Is it with a loan from a financial institution – if so how much could be done with such a loan facility and what amounts were claimed and paid out for work done on a monthly or quarterly basis comparative to the work done on the private component of the project?

Lastly – I think the actual construction costs  mentioned in the Public Protector report amounted to in excess of R165 million,  while Consultant costs amounted to in excess of R50 million. 

The Consultant costs amounted to circa 31% of the construction costs – which really is totally unacceptable.  

Normal consultancy fees amounts to between 10% and 14% of the total construction costs.   Lets put it at 14%  and the Consulting costs should not have exceeded R23 million.

What happened to the other circa R39 million?

I think a detailed forensic audit is needed in this case – especially  since there is a wide open scenario for looting available in this case.

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now