Zuma used home loan to pay back Nkandla costs
President Jacob Zuma used the proceeds from a home loan to pay back the money for the non-security upgrades to his private Nkandla homestead, the Presidency said on Monday.
In June, the Treasury said that Zuma should pay R7.8 million for the non-security upgrades, after the Constitutional Court in March ordered Zuma to pay back some of the R246-million of state money spent upgrading his private home.
The court ordered that Zuma must personally pay the amount by September 29.
The Presidency confirmed Zuma had paid over an amount of R7,814,155 to the South African Reserve Bank.
Zuma has repaid money for non-security upgrades to Nkandla: Treasury President Jacob Zuma has paid for non-security upgrades to his private Nkandla home, the National Treasury said on Monday, in line with a court order issued in March.
"The President raised the amount through a home loan obtained from VBS Mutual Bank on its standard terms‚ one of the few financial institutions which offer home loans in respect of land owned by traditional authorities‚" said spokesman Bongani Ngqulunga.
A Treasury spokeswoman said the payment had been received.
In her report titled Secure in Comfort in 2014‚ Public Protector Thuli Madonsela found that Zuma and his family improperly benefited from the measures implemented in the name of security which included non-security comforts as his Nkandla house.
These included the visitors’ centre‚ swimming pool‚ amphitheatre‚ cattle kraal with culvert and chicken run. She directed that Zuma‚ assisted by certain State functionaries‚ should work out and pay a portion fairly proportionate to the undue benefit that had accrued to him and his family.
For more than a year‚ Zuma did not act on Madonsela’s remedial action.
This prompted the Economic Freedom Fighters and the Democratic Alliance to launch applications to the Constitutional Court to force the president to comply with the remedial action.
In March‚ the court held that the failure by the president to comply with the remedial action taken against him by the Public Protector was inconsistent with the Constitution.