Cape Town - The opposition parties’ request for President Jacob Zuma to be called before the Nkandla ad hoc committee was based on his failure to respond to most of the questions put to him by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and the Special Investigating Unit in the course of their investigations.
The ANC argued that Zuma would not have been familiar with the details of matters that were the responsibility of his ministers and their officials.
Madonsela asked him 29 questions, listed below, and the president responded in a letter, mainly in general terms.
Part of his response follows the questions below:
* Did you or the Presidency request that security measures be installed at your private residence at Nkandla after you were appointed as the president in May 2009?
* Were the measures that the Department of Public Works intended to implement at your private residence communicated to you by the Minister of Police, as contemplated by the cabinet policy. If so, what were your impressions of the proposed measures and did you formally consent thereto?
* Were you at any stage informed of the cost of the proposed security measures? If so, who presented the cost to you, what was the amount, and how did you respond to it?
* Your private residence was declared a national key point by the Minister of Police, in terms of the National Key Points Act, on April 8, 2010. According to the evidence obtained during the investigation you were notified accordingly by means of a notice signed by the Minister of Police. Can you kindly confirm that this notice was served on you?
* What was your understanding of the declaration of your private residence as a national key point in terms of your responsibilities as the owner?
* Did you at any stage respond in terms of the notice by taking measures to secure your private residence, as required by the National Key Points Act and the notice. If so, what measures were taken?
* From the evidence it appears that the Minister of Police acted on your behalf, as contemplated by section 3a of the National Key Points Act, when he had your private residence secured. Were you notified of this, as is required by the Act, and if so, how?
* Were you ever advised by the Minister of Police that any part of the cost of securing your private residence as a national key point would be recovered from you? If so, when and how?
* According to the evidence, you met with representatives of the Department of Public Works and the South African Police Service at you private residence on August 12, 2009, where you were briefed on the security measures that were to be installed in the three new dwellings that you were constructing. Is this correct, and if so can you kindly explained what transpired at this meeting?
* The evidence obtained during the investigation also indicates that you complained on several occasions about the slow progress made with the implementation of the security project. Is this correct, and if so can you kindly explain the reasons for your concerns and how it was addressed?
* According to the evidence, you requested the former minister of Public Works, Mr G Doidge, to look into the delay. Is that correct? If so, did he report back to you and what were the nature of his reports?
* Mr M Makhanya, the architect that you appointed in respect of your private construction on the premises, was also appointed by the Department of Public Works as the Principal Agent for the security project. Did he present you with the designs of the Department of Public Works’ security project? If so, can you recall which designs were presented to you and how you responded to it?
* According to the documentation obtained during the investigation, former minister of Public Works, Ms G Mahlangu-Nkabinde, informed you in writing of the progress made with the implementation of the security project, shortly after she was appointed, on November 5, 2010. (Annexure B) Can you kindly look at the copy of this letter and indicate whether you received it and how you responded to it?
* Former deputy minister of Public Works, Ms H Bogopane-Zulu indicated during the investigation that she discussed the security measures with you. She also raised the possible apportionment of costs of the security measures between you and the state with you and requested a document to be prepared by the project team in this regard. The document was prepared and delivered to the Ministry of Public Works. (Annexure C) Can you please look at this document and indicate whether it was presented to you, and if so what your response was?
* If the document was not presented to you, was the apportionment of costs ever discussed with you? If so when and by whom? Did you ever enquire into it, and if so what was the response that you received?
* Deputy minister Bogopane-Zulu also indicated that she discussed the conversion of the fire-pool on the premises into a swimming pool with you and that you supported the idea that it could be used to teach children of the village to swim. Is this correct?
* Kindly indicate whether you are aware of the reasons why the fire-pool was converted into a swimming pool and whether the additional and apportionment of such costs were discussed with you. If so, who discussed it with you, and what was your response?
* The implementation of the security project resulted in the relocation of four households that were living on the site. Were you consulted in connection with the relocation and, if so, what was your response? Did you issue any instructions in this regard?
* According to the evidence, you apparently indicated that you were opposed to more contractors working on the site when Phase 2 of the project commenced, that is the construction of staff housing, etc. Is this correct and if so why were you opposed to more contractors? Did you issue any instructions in this regard?
* Deputy minister Bogopane-Zulu further indicated during the investigation that you supported her idea that the military clinic should be designed in such a way that it could also be used by members of the community. What is your response to that?
* It was also indicated during the investigation that you raised concerns about the bullet resistant glass that was installed in your houses. Is this correct and if so, can you kindly explain?
* A newspaper report alleged that two of your brothers, Messrs Joseph and Mike Zuma improperly benefited from the security project when items that were destined for it were delivered at their houses. What is your comment on this allegation?
* As indicated in my letter addressed to you on January 29, 2013, I have also received a complaint in connection with a statement that you made to Parliament about the bond on the property concerned. I have repeatedly requested to be provided with the relevant documents to enable me to deal with this complaint. Are you now in a position to provide these documents?
* Would you be willing to disclose the amount that you paid for the construction of the three new dwellings?
* How often do you use your private residence at Nkandla for official purposes?
* Is there any particular reason why you would prefer to use your private residence for official business rather than any one of the official residences that are available to you?
* Did you at any stage enquire into the cost of the security project, which was obviously extensive? If not, did you not feel obliged to do so as the head of state and as a substantial amount of public money was obviously being spent?
* How would you describe your involvement in the security project that was implemented by the Department of Public Works at your private residence?
Zuma replied by saying, among others:
“In the course of the engagements with the security cluster, I initially met with then Minister Doidge, senior SAPS officials and other government officials at my homestead in a consultative process regarding improved security due to my occupying the office of President of the Republic.
“I thereafter facilitated a meeting between the same grouping of persons and Minenhle Makhanya Architects, the consultant who was already engaged with building work at my home so that there would be as little disruption as possible to the work already commissioned.
“From time to time I received briefings both formally and informally from the various ministers engaged with the security enhancements although I was not intimately involved with the finer details.
“At these briefings I expressed concern with what appeared to be inordinately lengthy delays which impacted on my family.
“Equally, I found some of the security features like the bullets-proof (sic) windows an excessive encroachment on my use and enjoyment of my property.
“Regarding the rationale for the adoption of particular security features, I deem it neither prudent nor proper for me to comment, particularly where the Public Protector has had access to a range of ministers and officials properly tasked with this responsibility.
“With regard to my address to Parliament, I submit with respect, that insofar as it is alleged that I have misled Parliament on the existence of my bond over the Nkandla Property, Parliament is best placed to enquire into this matter should it so desire.
“Likewise, it is not proper for me to account for alleged conduct of members of my family who are not dependents of mine. Transgressions of the law by whomsoever should be reported to the appropriate authorities.”
Political Bureau