Nhleko repeats it: Nkandla will cost more

Money was expected to be spent, on incomplete work and the re-evaluation of security measures, at President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead, said police minister Nathi Nhleko yesterday.He was briefing members of Parliament's ad-hoc committee on Nkandla, on his report- released in May- on the R246 million security upgrades at Zuma's private residence Picture:Shan Pillay

Money was expected to be spent, on incomplete work and the re-evaluation of security measures, at President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead, said police minister Nathi Nhleko yesterday.He was briefing members of Parliament's ad-hoc committee on Nkandla, on his report- released in May- on the R246 million security upgrades at Zuma's private residence Picture:Shan Pillay

Published Jul 22, 2015

Share

Pietermaritzburg - Ignoring censure from ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe on his earlier comments that more must be spent on President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead, Police Minister Nathi Nhleko repeated exactly that on Tuesday.

Speaking at the KZN legislature on Tuesday, Nhleko repeated that extra funding would be required for incomplete work and the re-evaluation of security measures at the property.

Nhleko was briefing members of Parliament’s ad-hoc committee on Nkandla, on his report – released in May – on the security upgrades at Zuma’s private residence. The sitting was at the KZN legislature in Pietermaritzburg.

Nhleko presented the report to the committee before coming under fire.

He said the actual cost of the upgrades was R206 million and not R246m as had been widely reported in the media. Nhleko accused the media of “inflating the figure”.

The report found that the culvert, chicken run, cattle kraal, swimming pool, amphitheatre and visitors’ centre all formed part of security upgrades to Zuma’s home and that he did not have to pay for any of it.

This contradicted an earlier report by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, who recommended remedial action that required the president to pay back a portion of the money used on non-security upgrades.

ANC member Vincent Smith asked about outstanding work at Nkandla and how much it would cost to complete, and also if there would be a need to re-evaluate security.

Nhleko replied that with the security features being exposed in the media, security experts would need to assess how it had been compromised and then deal with the cost factor.

This was not the first time the issue of more being spent on upgrades had come up. In May, Mantashe slammed as “reckless” Nhleko’s statements that more money must be spent.

On Tuesday Nhleko was also criticised by committee members for being biased.

Questions were raised on his fairness and objectivity in the light of his being appointed a minister by Zuma. Holes were also poked in the report, and how it was limited to four aspects.

The DA’s John Steenhuisen said: “The mandate you carry is the one by the president … this is a classic case of conflict of opinion.”

On Nhleko finding that the president was not liable to pay back money for security features, Freedom Front Plus member Corne Mulder said: “I find it unlikely you would come to any other conclusion in terms of what the president asks.”

Nhleko said he could not determine his own involvement, he could only react to resolutions. He said that judges, the public protector and other heads of institutions were also appointed by the president and were not expected to make rulings in his favour.

“I think it’s childish and unethical to think that just because you are appointed by someone that you can’t be critical of them. In the report that I have produced, I stated clearly how I came to the conclusions.”

He said his oath of office required him to be honest.

“The matter is for you to debate.”

The IFP’s Narend Singh questioned why the Special Investigating Unit was going after Zuma’s architect, Minenhle Makhanya, in the courts to recover money, when he did things he was allowed to do. Makhanya was being sued for R155m by the state.

Nhleko said the issue was the pricing of work done and how costs were inflated.

Steenhuisen added that the swimming pool was primarily for recreational purposes. It was not a crime to own one in this country and the president should pay for his.

Nhleko replied that presidents’ facilities were part of the package that governed the work of a president and that the state still took over the security of former presidents.

The conclusions of the report were that the fire pool or swimming pool “is a strategic asset useful in fighting fires and therefore a security feature” and the animal enclosure kept livestock away from the security infrastructure. These features complemented the perimeter intruder protection system and motion-detector technology and were security imperatives. The amphitheatre had a clear security purpose as an emergency assembly point, while the visitors’ centre, built on top of the security control room, screened people entering the presidential complex and was thus a security feature, it said.

The Mercury

Related Topics: