I am seriously aggrieved by Nkandla extravagance: iLIVE

29 May 2015 - 14:00 By H Simon
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
President Zuma's homestead in Nkandla. File photo
President Zuma's homestead in Nkandla. File photo
Image: Thembinkosi Dwayisa

As a taxpayer of this country, I feel seriously aggrieved by the waste of money by the government with regards to Nkandla.

In the first instance, the situation is that President Zuma constructed a homestead on the site – but there is no clarity whatsoever as to who paid for the homestead construction.

As a public representative of the people I believe we need to know what the total construction cost of the private homestead and multiple other private buildings on the site was paid for. 

How was the total cost covered: was it by a bank/financial institution loan and what was the amount of the approved loan?

How much of the loan was taken up to cover construction costs on site?

It is a known fact that banks do not grant loans for construction of homesteads on land not owned by the applicant.

In the case of the Nkandla residence, the land belongs to the Inkonyana Trust and as I understand it the bank(s) involved cannot use the land and improvements as a loan guarantee and sell the land to recover their money in the event of the loan not be repaid.  

Be it as it may – was there a loan granted and if so full particulars as to the amount of the loan and the expenditure covered from the loan should be in the public domain – as there are legitimate reason to doubt whether the full construction cost of the private facilities on the site was not funded from government funds.

In view of the persistent attacks by the opposition, why is the above information not provided by the President to show that everything was 100% legitimate and the government did not pay for the private facilities constructed on the site?

If there was no loan involved, how was the private facilities on site paid for? In other words: who provided the money and why was such money provided?

The present situation is farcical in the extreme. President Zuma appointed a private architect to construct his home and the government agreed to use the architect to design and oversee the construction of the security facilities required on the site.  

However, since the architect does not have security clearance – the government does not provide details of what is required to be constructed – so he has a free hand to deal with the matter as he sees fit. 

So part of the construction includes a swimming pool – which someone called a fire pool after it was queried.  

What the wise guy who made that statement does not realize is that a swimming pool requires chemicals, which for a pool that size would cost a small fortune monthly to maintain it  for proper recreational usage.  

Are we – the taxpayers – paying for that maintenance as well?  

In any event a small reservoir would not have cost a fraction of the money spend on that pool.

By the way thatch homes for insurance purposes require a water sprinkler system which is to be installed and that system should have been installed in the case of all thatch-roof buildings on site.  

That would restrict the fire danger and allow for the arrival of the normal fire service vehicles to reach the site.  

There is just one question: how far away is the Nkandla homestead from the town itself?  A delay by an hour before the arrival of the fire service sounds fishy to me.  

Then we have the Zuma cattle that would trigger the alarm system if they are allowed to stay inside the security area so the cattle must be moved to another facility.  

If there was really the need such removal – why must the government pay for another facility for the cattle.  

The cattle is privately owned and if the Government require the removal of the cattle – it is the owner’s responsibility to remove same.

According to the latest report the security upgrade amounted to circa R50 million and the rest of the money was spent on public facilities like a clinic and homes for the security personnel.  

There is no clarity as to what was actually spent and how many security staff homes were built.    What was the costs per home constructed? 

A detailed cost breakdown is not provided or if provided is not in the public domain. 

The problem remains – if government funding is used to pay for part of the construction costs on a site while the rest is  private costs and if the construction of all facilities on site is done by the same contractor, there is nothing to prevent the architect to certify the full account for construction to the government for payment.  

The architect was appointed by President Zuma and no tender procedures were followed – so what prevent the Architect from doing the bidding of his original client?

I think that many South Africans believe that the full construction costs of all facilities – the private facilities as well – were fraudulently paid for by the government.  

So answers are needed, otherwise the public will remain convinced that fraud and corruption was applicable in this case.

I would appreciate it if the above could be further investigated and reported on.         

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