Cape Town – A costing of R10.6 million President Jacob Zuma wants taken into account for a settlement in the Nkandla case was outdated and failed to cover luxuries added to his homestead, the Democratic Alliance said on Thursday.
The draft order Zuma has asked the Constitutional Court to confirm next week, refers specifially to a document drafted by the Department of Public Works in 2011 and calls for it to be used as a point of departure by officials nominated by the Auditor-General and National Treasury to work out how much he is liable to refund.
Read: #NkandlaPayback: Zuma’s lawyer speaks
The officials should determine “the reasonable percentage of the cost of those measures which ought to be paid personally by the president, taking into account the Department of Public Works Apportionment Document which appears at page 248 of the Public Protector’s report”, according to the proposal he submitted on Tuesday.
According to the document, it had been accepted at the time that the president would personally pay in the order of R10.6 million for landscaping, lighting and building.
Read: EFF rejects #NkandlaPayback proposal
However, it is read as vague in relation to the five items which Madonsela flagged as non-security features - the swimming pool, cattle kraal, chicken run, amphitheatre and reception centre - and for which she ordered Zuma to repay a “reasonable sum” determined with the assistance of National Treasury and the police service.
The Democratic Alliance, who is asking the Constitutional Court to rule that Zuma has failed to uphold the law by flouting Madonsela’s directives, said Zuma’s offer was “desperate” and the costing spurious.
“Building continued after that and it also does not take into account inflationary pressures,” said James Selfe, the chairman of the DA’s federal executive.
Read: Concourt sets deadline for Nkandla deal
The party has taken issue with several aspects of the president’s letter, notably that the Auditor-General be imposed as an arbiter, and written to the registrar to say it noted his draft order and would proceed to argue its case on Tuesday.
Zuma said this week that his offer of a settlement was not new, but had been alluded to in his heads of argument filed in November last year.
The Democratic Alliance, in court papers filed in the same month, objected that the Auditor-General, unlike the Public Protector, could not take remedial action.
“The Auditor-General has no remedial power.”
Read: How much will Zuma pay back?
It also refered to the public works costing, stating: “The apportionment is very lenient on President Zuma”, and would leave the taxpayer paying R203 million for the work to his home.
Selfe said he believed Zuma’s proposal was further flawed in that he was asking the Constitutional Court to make an order, while at the same time arguing that it was not the appropriate forum to hear the applications brought separately by the DA and the Economic Freedom Fighters to force him to comply with Madonsela’s report.
In his letter to the registrar, Zuma acknowledged the anomaly, but asked that the court accept his proposal as it was in the national interest to put the Nkandla matter to rest.
African News Agency
* Use IOL’s Facebook and Twitter pages to comment on our stories. See links below.