“Pay back the money!”
These words, chanted by EFF MPs, saw chaotic scenes unfold in parliament eight years ago when then president Jacob Zuma was quizzed about the controversial “security upgrades” to his homestead at Nkandla.
Thuli Madonsela, then public protector, had already found in her report, “Secure in Comfort”, that Zuma and his family unduly benefited from non-security upgrades such as a swimming pool, chicken run and a visitors’ centre.
Zuma initially laughed off criticism about the extensive upgrades to his home, insisting his family was footing the bill. ANC MPs rallied to his defence. Who can forget former police minister Nathi Nhleko insisting the swimming pool at Nkandla was actually a critical security feature of the home — a fire pool. Taxpayers were treated to a recorded video demonstration of how this would work during a blaze.
Zuma eventually agreed to pay back a portion of the money, which he secured about two years after the “pay back the money” uproar in parliament, via a multimillion-rand home loan from VBS Mutual Bank. Less than two years later he was defaulting on the monthly repayments.
The long-running saga, featuring as many twists and turns as the Long Tom Pass in Mpumalanga, this week saw the high court grant a default judgment against Zuma for R6.5m, plus interest, in favour of VBS liquidator Anoosh Rooplal. The outstanding amount including interest is R7.8m. The bank, fraudulently looted of billions by its executives, is under curatorship.
But in the case of the former president there is a curveball. Zuma’s assets can be attached if he cannot repay the full amount, but not his immovable property in Nkandla (upgraded with taxpayers’ money) because it is built on tribal land owned by the Ingonyama Trust.
This raises several important questions. Will the money ever be fully repaid? In the glare of publicity around the Nkandla debacle, did the bank not conduct a due diligence exercise revealing the home could not be attached in the event of a default because it was built on tribal land? Could Zuma, given the financial obligations to his extended family at the time, comfortably afford the monthly repayments of about R70,000?
It remains to be seen what reception the sheriff of the court, sent to obtain an inventory of movable assets, will receive at the gates of Nkandla. Will the former president’s herd of cattle, some of the cows and bulls received as gifts during his tenure in office, be attached and sold? What about the furniture and multicoloured carpet gifted by former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, the tea set and a lamp shade from US first lady Michelle Obama and the blue pyjamas from former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi?
All efforts by the liquidator to claw back any money owed to VBS should be applauded, including the latest high court judgment against Zuma. The money recouped may not settle the Nkandla debt in full but it will contribute to the pot collected to at least pay something to the bank’s out-of-pocket creditors. And it sends a clear message that all loan defaulters, no matter their status, will equally be held accountable.
This is good for the rule of law and democracy in a country now grappling with the consequences of failing, in the past, to hold those in power to account for their actions.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.