South Africa: Nkandla, South Africa’s own Watergate scandal at play
- sinethemba zonke
- Mar 20, 2014
- 6 min read
Updated: Oct 1, 2018
Thuli Madonsela, the Public Protector, has finally released her report on the upgrades to President Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla. The Public Protector fulfilled her duty of holding government to account by investigating the upgrades made at the President’s home in Nkandla. This was after a public outcry as well as complaints regarding the vast amount of money spent. The findings of the report highlight a dereliction of duty on the part of President Jacob Zuma. The aftermath of this report could have consequences for the President the integrity of cabinet; and make a substantial impact in the upcoming elections.
The Public Protectors report has found that there has been gross misconduct, ethical violations and maladministration in the project to upgrade Jacob Zuma’s rural homestead. Those implicated include a few government departments; such as the Department of Public Works, the department of Defence and the South African Police Service. It also includes public officials and the President. The amounts spent on Nkandla will reach R246 million (US$26 million); money that will be coming from public funds. The funds have also been directed from other government projects. The Public Protector has labelled this a case of excessive opulence in the face of poverty. Considering the extent of unemployment and poverty in South Africa’s rural areas, this label is appropriate.
Key findings in the report:
Project Creep: Initial cost of the project was R27 million (US$2.5 million). It now stands at R215 million (US$19.8 million) and is expected to reach R246 million.
Relocations of residents: Zuma’s rural neighbours were relocated, with the State alleging that they were security threats. Public Protector’s report says the locals were unlawfully relocated at a cost of R7. 9 million (US$721,000).
President’s Architect: President Zuma’s architect, Minenhle Makhanya was a key player in directing the project. He acted as interlocutor for government officials and the President. Makhanya made R16.5 million from the project. The architect also made security decisions he was not qualified to make.
Departmental Priorities: Funds were reallocated from the Inner City Regeneration and Dolomite Risk Management programmes of the Department of Public works. Due to a lack of proper demand management and planning, service delivery programmes of the Department were negatively affected.
Government’s failure to act: Government failed to act when South African newspaper, Mail & Guardian, blew the whistle on the project in 2009. At that time the project was at a cost of R65 million (US$5.9 million).
Bona fide mistake: Zuma did not mislead parliament wilfully about his knowledge of the upgrades. The President appeared to have made a genuine mistake when speaking to parliament about the security upgrades.
Ethical Violation by President: His failure to act in protection of state resources constitutes a violation of paragraph 2 of the Executive Ethics Code and accordingly, amounts to conduct that is inconsistent with his office as a member of Cabinet, as contemplated by section 96 of the Constitution.
President of two hats: President Zuma is the ultimate guardian of the resources of the people of South Africa and that of being a beneficiary of public privileges of some of the guardians of public power and state resources, but failed to discharge his responsibilities in terms of the latter.
Personally benefitted: The Public Protector said that the President and his family would personally benefit from state funds spent on his home. This would be from non-security upgrades such as an Amphitheatre, a swimming pool (Government is inexplicably defending its stance that the pool is for security purposes and is in fact a fire-pool), a cattle kraal and visitors centre.
The Public Protector’s report has recommended that President Zuma pay back some of the non-security costs made at Nkandla. It also said that Zuma should reprimand Ministers involved and that he should report to the National Assembly within 14 days, to communicate his response and actions on the report.
ANC on the offence
The ANC has moved to protect the President by casting doubt on the claims made in the Public Protectors report. It has said that the report is inconsistent with an Inter-Ministerial report drafted from an investigation requested by the President. Gwede #Mantashe, the ANC’s secretary General has also raised his concerns regarding the delay in the release of the Public Protector’s report. Mantashe places the blame squarely on Thuli Madonsela; alleging that the report would be disruptive to the upcoming elections. There were insinuations prior to the report’s release that it was also politically motivated. The ANC’s stance was that it would respond in kind.
The ANC says it respects the independence of Chapter 9 institutions such as the Public Protector, but has insisted that this does not prohibit it from challenging claims made. The party will seek to bring to book all individuals, companies and public officials involved in misconduct, maladministration and ethical violations. While, the Secretary General stated that this would include the President if he were found guilty, the ANC’s press conference strained to make it a point that the President Zuma could not be blamed. Mantashe said that government is a network of departments, responsibilities and line functions. Since many of these are far removed from the President, blame should not be cast on him, even if it concerns his own private residence.
The South African government has not made a full response to the Public Protectors report; however it did host a public conference, responding to a preliminary report by the Public Protector. The Cabinet, led by Minister Jeff #Radebe, stated that the Public Protectors report would be reviewed together with other investigations into Nkandla. These would include the investigation by the Inter-Ministerial Committee as well as the investigation by the Minister of Public Works.
The strategy that will emanate from the ANC and the government will be to cast doubt on the report by the Public Protector. They have already started by pointing out differences in the findings made in the state’s own investigations and the Public Protector’s report. They view these as important discrepancies. The #Cabinet and the ANC do not seem too concerned about the appearances of credibility between a report produced by an independent institution and one conducted by the government. An investigation by government into the President, particularly by Ministers appointed by the President, cannot pass the test of credibility in the public’s eye. This issue will most likely end up at a court of #law.
Impact of the report
The Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) will be laying charges against the President. The DA, South Africa’s official opposition will also be calling for the impeachment of President Jacob Zuma. Since the ANC holds a substantial majority in parliament, with 66% of the seats, this will not be successful.
The report will definitely add fuel to an already intense political campaign. It will add ammunition for parties, a position supported by Gwede Mantashe, to use against the ANC. Opposition parties will use it to highlight the ANC’s tainted image of corruption, and will narrow down on the person who leads the party, Jacob Zuma.
The ANC will win the upcoming elections; there is not much doubt about this. The issue is how much will it drop in its support. Chances are that it will dip below 60% of the electoral vote. This cannot be attributed solely to the Public Protectors report as there are many challenges in the country. The South African public is certainly discontent about the democracy of this country. It is more likely that we will see people staying away from the polls, rather than a major swing towards opposition parties.
The Public Protectors report has also had an impact on the image of South Africa. The release of the report is a double edged sword in that it highlights the independence of South Africa’s institutions, but it has revealed the extent of graft in the Republic of South Africa. In the Nkandla case the allegations of ethical violation lead up to the number one citizen of the country. How this is handled by the government, the ANC as well other institutions will be critical to our constitutional democracy.
Critics of President Zuma are hoping that this #scandal could be the final blow to end his career. Considering the history of the charges he has faced and was able to deflect, this is unlikely. There is too much at stake for Zuma to leave the protective comforts of Presidential power. It could be the ANC that loses out the most in the long term.
Originally published on the africapractice website here: http://www.africapractice.com/blogposts/page/25/?id=5454
Comments