The DA will not accept any determination that allows President Zuma to retire, secure in comfort, at the expense of ordinary South Africans, writes Mmusi Maimane.
Let us be frank. It is absurd to even begin to debate the merits of a swimming pool, a kraal and an amphitheatre as safety features vital to a president's security.
The in loco visit by MPs to President Jacob Zuma's private residence at Nkandla this week makes it abundantly clear that the aim of the project was never to provide the minimum level of security for the president. Instead, it was a concerted effort to elevate the stature of his private home to that of an official presidential residence.
Our visit revealed a simple truth - this is not a debate about a swimming pool and an amphitheatre. It is a debate about government waste and the exorbitant cost of lavishly upgrading the private home of a single individual with a quarter of a billion rand of public funds.
The tragedy of this whole saga is that our Fifth Parliament has been dominated, to a large extent, by opposition efforts to compel President Zuma to repay a portion of the cost of the non-security upgrades made at Nkandla.
But, for seventeen months, since the public protector first found, in her report, “Secure in Comfort”, that he was responsible for these costs, the president has avoided all responsibility.
There is no doubt that the president was complicit in the gross escalation of the scale of the upgrades to his residence, and used the power of his Office to facilitate its lavish expansion. And he did not do so alone, but was aided in his evasion of accountability by members of his cabinet and the ANC caucus in Parliament.
The most recent affront to justice was the release of a report by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko - whom the president tasked with determining his liability - in which the president was absolved.
The minister exceeded both his mandate and his constitutional authority by substituting the public protector's findings with his own. In doing so he found that a kraal with culvert and chicken run, a swimming pool, amphitheatre and visitor's centre were necessary security features.
Of course there can be no rational justification for these items as anything other than luxuries constructed for the president's private use at the public's expense. But that is exactly what Minister Nhleko tried to do when the parliamentary ad hoc committee - set up to consider his report - visited the residence.
When one views Nkandla as a presidential residence, then suddenly it makes perfect sense to see the extensive landscaping outside, the mood lighting inside, the visitor's centre geared to receive dignitaries, and the amphitheatre.
The fact is that the president is simply not entitled to the upgrades. Nkandla is not one of the three official presidential residences; it is a private home. When President Zuma completes his term in office, the state will not receive any further benefit from the property, but the Zuma family will continue to enjoy its lavish, publically funded features in perpetuity.
That is the crux of the matter. The president abused his office to manipulate the installation of legitimate security upgrades to his private residence to include a long list of non-security, luxury features from which he unduly benefitted. This amounts to nothing more than the theft of public funds for the president's personal gain.
The audacity thereof is underscored when one considers the state of the municipality from which this monument to corruption gains its name. While the president spent R1.2 million on a new kraal, residents of Nkandla municipality suffer from over 40% unemployment and many go without basic services like water and sanitation. To argue that this expenditure was security related is insulting to those who do not even have the means to provide for their families. These are the people who needed a new clinic, but it was the president who was the undeserving recipient.
The DA believes in fairness, and a government that is accountable to the people. We will not accept any determination that allows President Zuma to retire, secure in comfort, at the expense of ordinary South Africans. We stand firmly behind the remedial action taken by the public protector and the standing she enjoys as a Chapter 9 institution granted specific powers by the Constitution.
If the ANC in Parliament will not compel the president to heed her findings, then we will take the matter to the courts. But make no mistake, they will be enforced. We will fight this fight, through whatever channels we can, until President Zuma has paid what is due.
* Mmusi Maimane is the leader of the DA.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Independent Media.
Independent Media