Nkandla: JZ won't pay

31 October 2014 - 12:01 By THABO MOKONE
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

Parliament's ad hoc committee on Nkandla has found that President Jacob Zuma did not enjoy undue benefit from the multimillion rand upgrades to his KwaZulu-Natal private residence.

This was one of the preliminary findings adopted by the ad hoc committee at its meeting last night following a presentation of a draft report by parliamentary officials.

In her report, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela found that Zuma had enjoyed undue benefits from non-security-related upgrades and recommended that he pay back a reasonable portion of the costs.

But the ad hoc committee's findings have effectively put paid to any hope that parliament will endorse Madonsela's recommendations.

ANC MPs who serve on the ad hoc committee considering Zuma's reply to Madonsela's recommendations and other reports on the matter last night found there were no reasonable grounds to agree with the public protector.

Senior ANC MP and justice committee chairman Mathole Motshekga, who led the party in tearing Madonsela's report to shreds, said all the upgrades to Zuma's homestead could not be equated to a benefit because they were carried out following a security assessment by the state.

"In my view, I would find that it would be premature to come to a conclusion that there was undue benefit because that determination must be preceded by expert assessment. So far, I don't find any objective and rational basis to come to that conclusion," he said.

Motshekga also said there was nothing untoward about the fact that Zuma personally introduced his Nkandla architect Minenhle Makhanya to government officials involved in the project.

He said Makhanya had to be introduced to the officials because he had been Zuma's architect long before he became president.

"I don't think there was anything irregular with those introductions," Motshekga said.

"Therefore, I take the view and I find that the introduction of Makhanya did not amount to the appointment of Makhanya or a suggestion that Makhanya should be appointed, that those who appointed him, in my finding, knew that that had to happen according to the legislative framework."

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