Please enter your login details

You can also sign in with your Sowetan LIVE
and Sport LIVE account details.
   Sign Up   Forgot password?

Sign in with:

 
  • All Share : 40784.31
    DOWN -0.53%
    Top 40 : 3387.09
    DOWN -0.49%
    Financial 15 : 11117.02
    DOWN -1.12%
    Industrial 25 : 46858.79
    DOWN -0.34%

  • ZAR/USD : 9.9656
    DOWN -0.34%
    ZAR/GBP : 15.6074
    DOWN -0.16%
    ZAR/EUR : 13.3620
    DOWN -0.19%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.1047
    UP 0.03%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.5061
    UP 0.19%

  • Gold : 1373.9500
    UP 0.43%
    Platinum : 1427.0000
    DOWN -0.83%
    Silver : 21.7446
    UP 0.37%
    Palladium : 698.0000
    DOWN -1.27%
    Brent Crude Oil : 106.100
    UP 0.08%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by I-Net Bridge
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Wed Jun 19 18:45:14 SAST 2013

No more tax millions for Zuma's wives, says ANC

MAYIBONGWE MAQHINA and ZINE GEORGE | 20 June, 2012 00:02
President Jacob Zuma's wives, Bongiwe Ngema, Thobeka Mabhija, Nompumelelo Ntuli and Sizakele Khumalo.
Image by: ELIZABETH SEJAKE

THERE will be no holy cows in the ANC leadership race - not even President Jacob Zuma's four wives.

That much is clear in the latest salvo from the Eastern Cape ANC: it wants the cost to the nation of the wives to be discussed at the ruling party's policy conference next week.

On Monday, as a special meeting of the provincial general council wrapped up in East London, members of the ANC's economic transformation commission supported a proposal that taxpayers should have to support only the first wife.

"What was made clear during the discussions was that, as taxpayers, we cannot afford to continue financing so many wives,'' said one of three delegates to the commission who spoke to The Times's sister paper, the Daily Dispatch.

"Only wife number one should get benefits from the state. Our understanding is that when [you] a man decides to have more than one wife, you are able to support the others. Then deal with it."

The delegate said the meeting felt strongly about the issue.

"We supported [the proposal] and if anyone for any reason suppresses some of our recommendations, there are channels to take the proposal forward."

Another delegate said a member of the ANC Veterans' League first raised the issue, arguing that the spousal benefits for a president's wives should be reconsidered.

The proposal to remove the benefits of Zuma's second, third and fourth wives, will be tabled at next week's ANC policy conference in Midrand, provided it receives support at Friday's special Eastern Cape executive council meeting.

If it is adopted by the policy conference, and later endorsed by the elective conference in Mangaung in December, then only Zuma's first wife, Sizakele Khumalo, would be entitled to spousal support.

The commission did not give feedback to delegates on Monday, denying the conference the right to adopt or reject the proposal as a provincial policy recommendation.

ANC provincial spokesman Mlibo Qoboshiyane said: "The nature of deliberations at the [general council meeting] inspired prolonged engagements, which meant we didn't have enough time for the commission to make presentations to the plenary."

Zuma's support in the Eastern Cape is not clear-cut. Opponents in the ANC who are lobbying for him to be replaced as party president by his deputy, Kgalema Motlanthe, have influence in some regions.

Zuma's wives have been regarded as a contentious issue since he became president in 2009, in particular the increased resources allocated as their "spousal budget".

In October last year - before Zuma took a fourth wife - it was revealed that about R700000 had been budgeted for car hire for his spouses over two years.

When Zuma married Bongiwe Ngema this year, his office dismissed speculation thatan extra burden would be placed on taxpayers.

The Presidency said: "The rules allow for partnerships to be recognised. As such Ngema already has secretarial support provided for by the Presidency, so there will be no change in support arrangements."

According to the Presidency, the budget for the presidential spousal support office was R15.5-million in the 2009/10 financial year.

This was almost double the cost to taxpayers during Thabo Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe's terms in office. Spousal support in 2007/08 was R8.4-million and R8-million in 2008/09.

Earlier this year, Presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj said it was "grossly incorrect" that taxpayers paid for the wives' upkeep.

"The spouses pay their own living or household expenses, be it food, mortgages, lights, water and so forth. Nothing is paid for by the state in the spouses' four households. They live in private homes."

The wives did not have constitutionally defined roles or obligations, so they were not remunerated by the state, Maharaj said.

"There are, however, expectations that spouses will provide support to the president in the execution of his duties, and specifically so at state and official functions.

"The Presidency therefore provides reasonable administrative, logistical and other support ."

Zuma has married six times. His other current wives are Nompumelelo Ntuli and Thobeka Mabhija.

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.

BornintheRSA

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
This is long overdue. The president (or any other) can have as many wives and children as what he can afford from his own salary, not from the public coffers. At a time when many scrape a living out of social grants, the president should not be satisfying selfish pursuits at the expense of others. Also time that Pinocchio Maharaj stops attempting to hoodwink the public. The wives have no official roles so they don't get remunerated by the state, they just get their lavish lifestyles funded by the state.
Avatar

david.makgopa2

Posted 234 days ago
Prof Zuma will maintain them with his salary,2nd term is clear
Avatar

SueKruger

Posted 181 days ago
True, true, and proves when you look at their expressions that too much money makes you miserable.They obviously married him for the moolah.
Avatar

GregSmith

Posted 162 days ago
The wife on the end looks miff, maybe the president doesn't have a finger in her pie anymore

madlapha

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
After years of crying internaly finaly the nation understand this isue.i thought that i will talk by removing zuma on his position during the election and vote him out.because he is a waist in our comunity and harasing poor woman of this country.i better support Malema than Zuma.

Mike123

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
I think that the good looking wife should receive the spousal benefits. Ohhhh... Hang on! He doesn't have a good looking wife.
Avatar

Ratttex-the-khosi

Posted 364 days ago
Thats just nasty what you said.
Avatar

ILoveTheTruth

Posted 364 days ago
LOL!
Avatar

Gibraltar

Posted 364 days ago
They are called, "the big 4, the sequel" lol. How many did he take to Mehico??? Its a good thing they are 1st ladies and travel by private jet. Imagine our taxes paying for 8 wives on business class???lol

Duzula

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Ask yourself why now that this issue come NOW? something is happening in the ANC...
Avatar

cANCerSurvivor

Posted 364 days ago
I was thinking the same thing. Why now? When they were at Polokwane they knew what they were getting into when they backed Zuma...
Avatar

Ozgood

Posted 364 days ago
It is simply that it's time for a change - some want to say farewell to Zuma

They have joined the ABZ party!
Avatar

Chichi7

Posted 364 days ago
I think i agree with you. All of a sudden, too many issues are coming out including the unauthorised budget by office of the president.

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Most countries where polygamy is recognised have only one first lady. She also has a set list of responsibilities.

As crazy as I find the practice, if it works for them then I have no problem with it. I just don't see why I should pay for it. If they want to have 5 wives then they should be able to afford it and if they want to have 25 children then they had best make a plan to afford that too. I can see no reason why I should be penalised for being responsible if they are not
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
That must be one of those twisted 'democracies' that come with new forms of domination. Such practices might have been accepted, if women also benefited- perhaps there was high unemployment - or something. But women are no longer discriminated against from employment. It also balance, if women were able to marry as many men as they can afford, because now, women are free to produce, physically, economically, sexually, like men.

But still, in a democracy, this is complete duper, unless women are allowed to vote against their husbands, if they chose to do so. But still this remains sexual sadism, from whatever angle one looks at it. Whatever value there was in it, it no longer applies.

Stirrer

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
What happens when Bra Jake is relieved of the Presidency? Will he be able to afford all his wives when his benefactors realise that his political influence is significantly curtailed? Or will we start seeing divorces by his younger wives due to cutbacks on their lifestyles resulting from a drop in their old husband's income?
Avatar

sistachick

Posted 364 days ago
Still gets his salary "as an ex-president", but still won't be able to afford all the wives and the luxury mansion and village in KZN. He wants to hold office for a second term so that he can sneak in the changes to the Constitution so that he can hold office for life. This person is dangerous and very cunning - should be kicked out now before it's too late. Remember this person was so stone broke he was borrowing from his pal Schaik. I would be aware and very afraid of him.
Avatar

Gibraltar

Posted 364 days ago
Hi Stirrer,
I think you are naive by choice. Our president made sure he stole as much as he could in his first 12 months as president and made sure his family got all they can. Now he has tapered off in syphoning of the state and slush funds and feels he is holier than all. lol
Dont worry about affordability, if he does not go to jail, he will be able to afford another 4 wives till he he is well over a 100. tsk tsk tsk

InExile

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Are any of these six wives permitted to have other husbands?. If not how does that square with the gender equality provisions of the constitution?

MusaMahlangu

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
It sounds like a good idea. But it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it's a reversal of women empowerment, particularly rural women. I can't believe this would come from rural Eastern Cape! Does this mean the Eastern Cape ANC would also strip second and third wives of other civil servants of access to medical aids as spouses etc. What of their children? Should they also be stripped of medical aid cover, Zuma's and other civil servants or should this law only apply to Zuma their enemy?
Avatar

BobbyBob

Posted 364 days ago
The custom of more than one wife is disrespectful to women. Time to move on from the cultural "Harem" idea. It's also not practical in a world where all facilities are modern and cost money. These ladies dont consult Sangomas anymore for health issues, they see doctors. Life has changed and culture must adapt.
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 364 days ago
In a company, your medical aid is subsidised for ONE wife and her children. You can add on as many other people onto your medical aid as you wish (including parents, uncles etc) but the cost is yours.

To be honest, if you can't afford to have multiple wives then you shouldn't.
Avatar

Ratttex-the-khosi

Posted 364 days ago
They did say that if you have more than 1 wife, then u can afford them. Zuma must pay from his salary for the extra wives
Avatar

Territc

Posted 364 days ago
MusaMahlangu - you have no idea of the situation in the real world. In the real world a husband contributes towards the medical aid that he has with an organisation, that means that he does not get it for free. For every dependant on his medical aid, there is an additonal cost to him. Zuma pays nothing, absolutely nothing for the upkeep of his many wives. It should not be my responsibility to pay for his wives upkeep, let alone his upkeep. I have had to make sacrifices and cannot get what I need for my family because I am supporting his many wives and family. I have no problem contributing towards one wife but not to his entire harem. If you want to marry so many women and have scores of offspring you should be able to afford them in the first place and not force us, the taxpayer to bankroll your lifestyle. They are not even modes about their lifestyles given that they don't pay a cent towards it. They should be thinking of the people who do pay for it.
Avatar

bugsy

Posted 363 days ago
Musa your argument is SO lame.......unless of course YOU are one of those civil servants with multiple wives. Get with the program, bru, we're in the year 2012 for goodness sake!

BobbyBob

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Pretty picture, only the girlfriends are missing. Maybe "the spear" could have made its point more subtly.
Avatar

Ozgood

Posted 364 days ago
Of course you are correct, BobbyBob.

How many of our top (white as well as black) business men have more than one mistress and nothing is said. Of course it's because these business men pay for the support of their concubines.

I am not sticking up for Zuma nor for the excuses of his obsequious spokesman, the Maharaja. I do not like either.

Do you remember when Zuma became president three years ago, there was a photo of him on the front page of The Times with the caption THE SURPRISING PROMISE OF JACOB ZUMA

I also say that "The Spear" was a gross offense to public decency. Zuma said that it impugned his dignity but this he did himself by his own behaviour
Avatar

BobbyBob

Posted 364 days ago
Ozgood; "How many of our top (white as well as black) business men have more than one mistress and nothing is said"

A lot is said and ,if found out, there are serious consequences.It is not an accepted practise.
Avatar

PierreMare

Posted 364 days ago
most of our top exec's philandering is NOT paid by my tax contribution

manga2

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Change the Constitution then we can talk. It's not about Zuma, it's about his wives. You cant be nit pricky, they're all first ladies. Constitutionally, since they're all his wives they deserves equal treatment, constitutionally.
Avatar

Territc

Posted 364 days ago
Having read the Consitution from A-Z and back again, it does not state anything about what the President or his family is entitled to in terms of remuneration and benefit. It talks about equality yes under the Bill of Rights, but the interpretation of whether we pay for his wives does not form part of the constitution, this is determined solely by government. If you are going to use the Consitution as basis for paying for his wives, then I can take the government to court for my share of that equality. If they can pay for Zuma's wives, then they can pay for me too, since our base is about equality under the consitution and I am the same treatment that his wives receive. Pay me!
Avatar

foxie123

Posted 364 days ago
@ Territc - why only now? what a bunch of loosers. instead of this poor province of mine focus on real issues. it's high time we talk about land and nationalisation. and hopefully wil start seeing minotities leaving this country of ours.

TshidisoNtuli

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Here's Zuma's response to the proposal. "It's a conspiracy by the losers of Polokwaner. Awuleth' umshini wami, wena uyangibambezela". Than the ANC will shove the matter under the carpet and act like nothing happened.

manga2

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
If you're fed up with the President, say so and remove him. Dont start meddling with constitutional issues particularly as we would really like to change the other more crucial issues in the constitution: the land issues and expropriation without compensation.

Zuma's wives are all first ladies, as long as he's the President of RSA. Dont trample on their constitutional right just to get at Zuma.

Once we do that we'll be setting a terrible precedence and we'll soon call for a referendum on the land question and subsequently change the constitution re land isseas and nationalisation.
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 364 days ago
The constitution respects the right to have more than one wife. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the wives of the president are the tax payers' responsibility. This does not affect the constitution
Avatar

foxie123

Posted 364 days ago
i agree with you. my poor province should be focusing on real issues instead of tribalism. land should be our main focus and nationalisation. lets force the movement to enforce these proposed resolutions and dont care if these minorities leave our country.

Jajes

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Zuma will always be an embarrassment. I thank God he is not my president. How did they make him a president anyway -Weird...!!!??? It is high time Zille became a President to save SAs this embarrassment.
Avatar

Maxi

Posted 364 days ago
If you are a South African Zuma will remain your president so long as he remains in that position. Like it or not!!!

ProgressiveAfricanDemocrat

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Let us all congratulate the ANC in the Eastern Cape for rising to the occassion and providing leadership and guidance to the rest of the organisation. After the madness that has been coming from KwaZulu-Natal not a few comrades were in despair regarding the direction of South Africas premier liberation movement and ruling party. The Eastern Cape is the send largest ANC province (probably the largest as some provinces have a habit of forging membership lists and registers to inflate numbers) and its voice is very important. We were encouraged over the weekend to hear the provincial leadership say that they were going to be disciplined and behave with honour as far as the ANC leadership contest is concerned. We were delighted to hear that ANC branches have every right to nominate their preferred leaders i.e a the right time when nominations open in October. How encouraging to hear that the ANC provincial leadership is not going to dictate to ANC branches. Lets contrast this with the ugly situation in KwaZulu-Natal where the provincial leadership has already decided that the province will vote as a block and back Jacob Zuma 100%(probably because he is Zulu) and that at a ime when nominations are not open officially. We lament the situation in KwaZulu-Natal where ANC democratic processes are subverted and compromised to pursue a factionalist and tribalist agenda. When the IFP still had influence in KZN (and even now) its members were always used as a rubber stamp for positions already taken by the leadership. Many IFP supporters in KZN have now moved to the ANC, and only to find that they still cannot make decisions, which are imposed on them by the leadership. When the leadership in KZN says "we are 100% behind Zuma" anyone who disagrees or dissents risks losing life or limb. Jacob Zuma and Gwede Mantashe turn a blind eye to the situation in KZN because they believe it benefits them.

And now the Eastern Cape ANC is questioning taxpayers' money being spent on Jacob Zuma's spouses. This is leadership and a cherry on the top of a province now focussed on setting an example to the rest of the ANC. Keep it up, comrades!
Avatar

RobrtMugabe99

Posted 364 days ago
There is no politics here otherthan being tribalist similar to whayt your leader is perpertrating . Zuma is nt supported by Zulus only, the very same people who demonstrated the downfall of Malema in Pol would you say are Zulus, are you going to tell us Sindiso Magaqa is nt a Zulu

There is no politics with Malema in actual fact he has ran out of support, the NEC was a yard stick for Mongaung

MusaMahlangu

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
@progressiveafrican. Are you really congratulating the Eastern Cape ANC? This is an ANC that can't build roads, schools, is presiding over one of the most corrupt provincial governments ever, they can't run hospitals with multiple deaths for negligence, they can't feed school children or transport them to schools despite huge budgets for this. This is an ANC which is in provincial government that is under national government take over because they are corrupt, inept and unable to govern. They are NOW your paragons of virtue because they said something against Zuma? Really? There is no bigger fool than you!
Avatar

Mgwijikhwebu

Posted 364 days ago
Well said Musa....

IHateThem

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
So many of you choose to ignore Mac Maharaj's words that taxpayers DO NOT PAY for the President's wives upkeep. Budget allocated to them is for the activities for social programmes they choose to champion.
Avatar

PierreMare

Posted 364 days ago
where do the funds for this "budget" come from? Pravin Gordin perhaps?
Avatar

buddi

Posted 364 days ago
@IHateThem (who by the way?)

And you believe him?
Avatar

ProgressiveAfricanDemocrat

Posted 364 days ago
You seem to conveniently ignore the obvious fact that the Spousal budget has jumped from R4m to R15m.

Mgwijikhwebu

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Limiting benefits to one wife is surely looking at things with the western view and a total disregard for African practices which embraces polygamy.

I guess children for politicians like ministers have certain benefits. They also need to limit the number of children to as maximum of 4 or 5, for consistency and keeping in touch with the western values which the ANC Eastern Cape has embraced.

Jimbo56

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Who in his right mind wants more than one mother-in-law?
Avatar

Black-Moses

Posted 364 days ago
Only those with Zuma's mentality.
Avatar

ProgressiveAfricanDemocrat

Posted 364 days ago
Good question, but when you get divorced or the wife does is here mother still your mother-in-law?

swona1

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
I think we must not choose a president with more than one wife, is that hard?
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
Jeeesh!. And you can type in English, nogal?

sibusisomathonsi

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Most of comments here are directly to the president of the anc not to the proposal from Eastern Cape. But I wuld like to remind people that Jacob Zuma was directly elected in polokwane bythe deligates of the ANC. It might happed tht even most of the people who are busy lambasting our president are the deligates, they are just barking. I'm saying that is is better when your are the candidate because you will be able to express you loosing opinion in a policy conference @ the end of this month.
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
Eliminate the tax violence, and then we will let you hang it out in the open, as you wish, and stick to anyone. I am curious. What percentage of the salary is the PAYE, by the way? And do you think a 30 year old woman, would marry a 70 year+ old man, if he had not created such a high unemployment figure, and everyone had a decent job?

TomTheron

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Can Times report on what was paid towards FW de Klerk's wife during his time as leader of South Africa?

Kitty.cat

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
I dont know if im right or wrong here but this looks like Jujus doing.. he wants to turn everybody against Zuma not that im supporting this but something is fishy and it smells like Juju

DufdufDj

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
We must count our blessings people. We are having a bargain here. Let't leave it like that. Mrs Mbeki alone costs the state R8m. Each Mrs Zuma is costing us R15m/6 = R2.5m. A total saving of R33m! This is a non-issue for me.

Seriously now, it is not a crime to not want Zuma anymore. Just campaign for your guy. Tell me what it that he / will do differently from Zuma. Tell me factually and calmly where Zuma has erred in implementing the 2009 ANC Manifesto. Do not get personal and tribalistic.

The anti Zuma ANC cannot have its cake and eat it. The things they are pointing out now were there in 2009. Put your guy out there. Point his good side, and let's decide. Remember, there is life after Mangaung. You will still work with comrade Zuma after Mangaung, even if he is just recalled to a branch secretary, you will still want him to implement the programme of the victors in that branch!
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
Now this if DofDof.
Avatar

Stirrer

Posted 364 days ago
"Mrs Mbeki alone costs the state R8m. Each Mrs Zuma is costing us R15m/6 = R2.5m. A total saving of R33m! This is a non-issue for me."

Mr Mbeki's spouse cost the state R8m. Mr Zuma's spouses costs the state R15m. A total extra of R7m (or 88% increase). Unbelievable - definitely not a non-issue!
Avatar

buddi

Posted 364 days ago
@DufdufDj

Maths word sums are definitely not your strong point.

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
I doubt if there was any period where women's value lied only in lining up for a man to feast on their bodies, and procreate. Surely they must have had an economic value, even in the darkest part of Africa. I suspect that one of the possible values a few kings were compelled to have more women under their belts, was when the king had many people to feed, or something.

Even so, more than one is contrary to democracy, because in the old African practice, women were generally sub-servient to their husband, and were never allowed a role in a village's affair. Understandably so, because they could be lost to other tribes, through marriage.

Democracy is about an individual expression, on his or her affairs should be managed, which they pay for. If this were not the case, anyone could simply marry all or most women in a village, and win any election - which would count for many dictatorships that make our history. Just as everywhere else, this was the case, but in democracies wars are increasingly proving a lack of grey matter. People no more hero-worship dictators or 'conquerers' old. We are now realizing that life does not need heroism, but life-giving and sustaining leadership. Even animals do not destroy their own species. Only humans do.

It cannot be that only the 'culture' that satisfies men, though phony, must be the one that is respected. Men have always sought to preserve their power of dominating everyone else, and come up with many innovative ways to do so. Such that it is up every man, capable of reasoning, to strive for societal progress. To do so will require shedding all oppressive old practices, even if this is unpopular.

Times are moving so fast that it will soon be possible for one family to live in different parts of the world, physically, but be able to communicate in each and every second. The single wife marriages, will still be tested by the current knowledge age. Let's discard all backward and taxing old practices.

Stirrer

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Jannie,Bismark and Beast had better shine up for the Springboks - the front-rowers (and reserve) in the above photo could give them a serious run for their money!

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
I know and staunchly believe in the freedom of speech, but there should be some limitation to freedom of stupidity, for which we are all paying dearly now. Children have a right to play, but we quickly remove a hammer in a child's hand, not in denial of their right to fool around, but to protect their lives, and us from grief.

POST94

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Why now? The very same ANC Comrades elected Comrade Zuma with 783 corruption charges and a crew of wives en tow. Some people have no backbones.

i_stub_born

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
HA HA HA HA...............and 'just-because' a slice of the ANC (Juju's pushing) has made a ""proposal"" are supposed to believe it will happen....ever ????????????

Zuma has demonstrated time and time again he has no insight, responsibility, leadership and much less ethics or moral. He is the perfect leader for an organization of disorganized crime imposed to the nation by a corrupt 'intelligentsia'..........The ANC branch in question was aware of this, and they did not have any problems at the beginning, why this change of heart now?...because they are not going to make us believe all of a sudden they have become ethical and moral.....................

Chichi7

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
If I am not mistaken, African culture allows a man to marry as many wives as he can afford. Therefore, Zuma is within his african rights to marry 20 wives if he wants.
However, the trick here is marry as many wives as one can afford not as many wives as the tax from the nation allows.
We already have too many things that needs money to resolve, the least of our problems should be finding the budget to feed the many Zuma wives. This budget must come out of the president himself.
Frankly, this topic is 3 yrs too late.
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
@Chichi7

Where can get this 'african culture' that allows a man to marry as many wives as he can afford? If one animal occasionally strays away from the rest, can we call that a habit of the species?
Avatar

Maxi

Posted 364 days ago
m1si2zi3nzo4
For your information, polygamy is not practiced only in Africa. Arabs and some people in America also practice it. So do research before labeling something to be African.
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
The comment says 'African culture' and you are way off my response. Its immaterial how many countries 'practice', they have their reasons for doing, surely. If these are functioning democracies, they would never allow a leader of a country to abuse their taxes, like we do. Ours was not only still-born, but it is even killing off its parent - apartheid.
Avatar

Maxi

Posted 364 days ago
m1si2zi3nzo4
Still you are wrong because it is not an African culture but a believe of handfull African race. Not all Africans believe or practice polygamy. So in short I can say stop generalising because polymamy is not a general African custom.

JerryYatriq

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Isn't it time that the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law be respected and each one of Zuma's wives be allowed to have as many husbands as he has wives?

As far as pay and tax are concerned, he should not be entitled to any additional pay or financial support in respect of his multiple wives.

He should be entitled, in law, to have a tax rebate for any of his dependent children but only for those truly dependent on him.

He should be charged fringe benefits tax on each of the luxury vehicles used by him or in his entourage.

In turn, each of his wives, if they have independent income should be entitled to tax rebates only in respect of her individually won dependent children.
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
The constitution also requires a correct interpretation. It cannot guarantee a right to equality, but still permit practices that were the result of old inequalities. Certainly not for a president of a country to use them as his culture. Furthermore, no one can tell how and when such culture developed. If one man was permitted to have another wife, if one could not bear him a child, surely, this cannot apply where such practice is likely to lead to misery and poverty. This is more so, in a democratic dispensation.

PolyTix

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
TOM THERON

All that De Klerk's wife was entitled to was a private secretary and if she needed transport it was supplied from the Government Garage, in either Pretoria or Cape Town. She never received an allowance as such, but should she for instance give a tea party it was paid from a general entertainment account. When she accompanied FW on official duties she was entitled to privileges associated with the trip.

The zuma-wastage is a flippen disgrace. R700,000 just for car hire over two years = ±R1000 per day.!!!!! and then in a country where 70% of people live under the breadline. Disgusting.

boy1466

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
President Zuma is just useless the whole world is taking South Africa like a joke country where in the world, The president have six wifes, Shame South Africa someone have to remove this man before he spoil our country, Just give $2billion dollars to Europe,I.M.F people are suffering in South Africa and Africa why he should help Europe where we are struggling, Six wifes selfish man. The time have come for Zuma to go, We want Malema, He will will be a very President, President Malema, l salute you

devanzlive

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Please take note. This is a media stunt. This is just to accumulate votes. Please do not be distracted by many things they will do over the next few weeks. Keep your eye on the ball! Remember all the protests!!! Vote DA!!!!
Avatar

IHateThem

Posted 364 days ago
I will never vote back apartheid. Look at WC. One in four people of colour is hooked onto some substance. Strategy is from Australia.

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
My humblest appeal to all is that we must stop blaming the constitution for the ANC's irresponsibility. This has become obnoxious practice by the ruling elite. Just yesterday it was blamed for Nathi's irresponsible comments, as well as against KZN MEC's anti- COSATU rants. Blaming apartheid and the constitution has become our second breadth, we hardly think about doing it. Apartheid and the constitution must always be blamed for irresponsibility, but every elite is dying to lay his hands on it to change, when it does not suit them. Similarly, the worst forms of racist practices, are blamed on the apartheid racism, as if two wrongs make one right.

Even more unbearable, is the use of the constitution, only when it is necessary to justify abuse of the public funds. In the past theft was justified as an act of 'repossession', and the destruction of property (used by the oppressed) was justified as a form of 'struggle' against apartheid. We must come to a point where we interpret the constitution for what it seeks to achieve - the well-being of every citizen.

This is hard because the constitution promotes humanity, which is unnatural to human actions, but the world will be a better place to live in, when human 'not cultural' values are considered. Cultures were reactions of different tribes to different natural conditions they were confronted with, at different periods in their lives. They were creative, but not natural. We cannot turn back the clock to those practices, every time we mess up, because we are lazy to think creatively.

DufdufDj

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
@buddi
Must I spell it out to you? If each of Zuma's wives were paid the same as Mrs Mbeki then we will be paying R48m. Put it another way, if the next president has one wife, there is no reason to spend more than R2.5m on her. We have proof it can be done.

Mgwijikhwebu

Posted 364 days ago
Avatar
Indeed the ANC is in a serious state of paralysis. The once mighty movement has degenerated into a party that is used for the elevation of personal vendettas to the level of policy making. Honestly, don't these people (ANC-EC) have serious policy matters to deliberate on other than the perks of the first ladies? This is a clear personal attack on Zuma himself. In SA, less than 10% of African men are in polygamous marriages. If one goes a level higher, especially senior politicians the percentage becomes negligible. Not to mention those tipped to become future state president. In all likelihood Zuma is more than likely to be the only state president of SA to have more than one wife at a time.

So now why would the ANC-EC spending energy on a non-issue like this one? The only answer to this would be an intention to attack Zuma as a person. No other reason. As correctly pointed by one of the bloggers, ANC-EC is clueless when it comes to leadership matters. The province is a mirror image of the ANC national state of affairs, it is in parlysis. No wonder they have now resorted to such petty issues.

I hope the rest of the provinces will reject this childish proposal outright without wasting anytime in debating it.

OMG, the ANC-EC does not take real issues affecting this country seriously.
Avatar

JohannSchalkwyk

Posted 72 days ago
The excessive greed of a president is a serious matter because he is a roll model to the whole population and if he sets such a bad example, the country is on its way to ruin.