The Constitutional Court ruling that has reaffirmed the powers of the Public Protector will put the focus on how much money President Jacob Zuma is likely to repay. At the same time‚ the costs of a saga dating back to 2009 have not yet been tallied‚ with yet another report into Nkandla spending now in the offing.Opposition parties have not yet questioned the costs of various probes and reports into Nkandla‚ such as the original report on the upgrades by the Department of Public Works‚ an interministerial report‚ a Special Investigating Unit (SIU) report‚ and the report by the Public Protector. The Constitutional Court on Thursday tasked the Treasury with determining the extent of non-security spending at Nkandla‚ and how much the President should repay. Treasury has 60 days to do this‚ and Zuma was ordered to repay the amount determined 45 days after Treasury has done so.Other battles are expected to seek to shed light on who was responsible for signing off on millions of rand in spending deemed nonessential.At the same time‚ other courts are busy dealing with the fallout from Nkandla for those blamed for authorising the upgrades‚ though information related to this is likely to slowly be made public Zuma’s personal architect‚ Minenhle Makhanya‚ facing a R155 million civil lawsuit brought by the SIU‚ for allegedly authorising features not recommended by various official security assessments.The Sunday Times reported at the weekend that new details had since emerged through a dossier‚ compiled by a former Department of Public Works official‚ showing that political heads had been repeatedly warned by officials that Zuma would need to pay for some of the features.Eleven public servants represented by the Public Servants Association (PSA)‚ meanwhile‚ are also waiting for disciplinary proceedings to conclude. Those processes may also be subject to court battles. PSA KwaZulu-Natal manager Claude Naicker said on Wednesday that what was at issue was access to documents for their defence‚ while applications brought by the press for access to the hearings — which the PSA has opposed and which were previously denied by those chairing the hearings — might also be reviewed in court.The PSA might also seek a review of the chairperson’s decisions to rule certain documentation as privileged‚ he said.“There is lots of outstanding documentation that we needed‚ it has come in dribs and drabs. To date there hasn’t been full disclosure‚” he said. “We have a dispute within a dispute.” The Department of Public Works did not immediately respond to questions put to it on Wednesday.Public Protector spokesman Oupa Segalwe said on Wednesday it was difficult to put a cost on that investigation. “Suffice to say that a lot of spending would have gone towards personnel costs‚ including the external forensic expertise. This is why we regularly request more funding. Additional resources will help us to employ more investigators.“Having said that‚ we would have spent on travel and accommodation as well as subsistence and travel for team members during the information gathering phase of the investigation‚ including meeting and interviewing witnesses‚” he said.- TMG Digital/BDLive..