President Jacob Zuma will not have to pay a cent for the security upgrades at his Nkandla residence, but taxpayers will cough up much more for the president's homestead in future. Police Minister Nathi Nhleko has found that all unfinished security upgrades must be completed, and that the visitors' centre must be upgraded at taxpayers' cost to conform to "presidential standards".Furthermore, all the attention focused on the upgrades has compromised security so a new assessment must be done soon, according to Nhleko.He could not say what the future security detail would cost."I do not know," he snapped when questioned yesterday.Nhleko, who serves in cabinet at the president's pleasure, came to his conclusions despite the finding by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela that Zuma "improperly benefited from the measures implemented in the name of security, which include non-security comforts such as the visitors' centre, swimming pool, amphitheatre, cattle kraal and chicken run with culvert".Madonsela concluded that Zuma should pay back a portion of the R246-million spent on upgrades, with the exact amount determined by the police and national Treasury. But Nhleko found those features to be in order as they all related to addressing security concerns.Regarding the fire pool - which resembles a suburban pool with mosaic artwork, brick paving, safety nets and steps - Nhleko declared that the fire-fighting capabilities of the Nkandla and Umhlathuze municipalities were not up to scratch.Their limited fire-fighting abilities were shown in a video. The Nkandla fire brigade arrived an hour and 10 minutes late, with a bakkie and petrol-powered fire-fighting system that had no petrol and was, therefore, useless.The firemen claimed that open water sourcing, such as the fire pool/swimming pool, was best for fighting fires, to which the Nkandla homestead was prone because the thatched-roofed huts are close to one another.Nhleko described the structure that Madonsela referred to as an amphitheatre as a contour-shaped soil retention wall, and said it was a necessary safety feature given the gradient of the land and danger of mud slides.He found the animal enclosures to be safety features rather than comfort features because they prevented animals interfering with the electronic perimeter fencing, which could trigger false alarms and make security guards less vigilant.The visitors' centre also had security features, Nhleko said.His report will be submitted to a multiparty parliamentary committee, which will investigate its veracity and report back to the National Assembly.Legal experts lashed out at Nhleko's exoneration of Zuma.Advocate Johan Kruger, the director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, said there was a strong case for a constitutional court challenge."There are two critical points - accountability and oversight. It's unthinkable that a member of cabinet, accountable to the president, would be in a position to come to a conclusion objectively on this matter."Parliament has a constitutional duty to hold the executive to account, ensuring effective oversight. Since they have been provided with independent findings and recommendations by the public protector they have a constitutional duty to consider and deal with these findings in an objective manner."Kruger said that there were good grounds to argue that the National Assembly and parliament's Nkandla ad hoc committee had failed to deal with the recommendations of the public protector."The question is not whether the recommendations are binding or not," he said."It's very difficult to call this anything other than a whitewash ." Kruger said.Lawson Naidoo, executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, agreed: "A critical issue of all the reports that have been done is that only one is truly independent, the public protector's."He said: "We know from a High Court judgment last year that if the government is going to disagree with remedial action of the public protector, it must provide reasons for doing so. The police minister has not done so."The public protector simply required that the amount that the president pays be quantified, not whether he has to pay it back."The FW De Klerk Foundation said: "[Nhleko's] report creatively justifies the expenditure of public funds .which could have been used to build 2400 homes housing at least 10000 people."IFP chief whip Narend Singh said: "This is tantamount to Colonel Sanders asking his chickens to vote on whether or not they would like to be slaughtered."DA leader Mmusi Maimane, vowing that the "battle is far from over", said the party's lawyers would advise it on what legal avenue to pursue.EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndloze said Nhleko and the executive were "seeking to undermine the public's intelligence" with the conclusion that Zuma did not have to pay back any money and instead needed more money for security upgrades.But ANC spokesman Moloto Mothapo said: "The report conclusively proves that [the] features were not erected at the president's private residence but in the outer perimeter fence nearby. These do not amount to any direct 'undue' benefit."SA'S funniest home videoThe day after President Jacob Zuma responded to #paybackthemoney demands with a comedy act, the country was treated to Nkandla: The Musical.To show how Zuma's swimming pool is, in fact, a "fire-pool", Police Minister Nathi Nhleko played a video in which emergency workers drove to the pool, hooked up a hose and stood in heroic poses as water gushed out - all to the strains of 'O Sole Mio.@TashJoeZA tweeted: "Some days, living in SA feels a lot like someone has dropped LSD into everyone's drinking water."@pierredevos wrote: "On days like this I wish I had rather become a comedian. The jokes write themselves."Another video showed why Zuma's cattle needed a tunnel to avoid tripping motion-detection beams."OMG there actually is a video of the cows and chickens. You really cannot make this up," tweeted @RanjeniM...